On 2014.11.06 3:06 PM, Jiří Činčura wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> Anybody here willing to give EF Migrations a try? I'm getting close to first
> implementation.
>
First error i got when i enable migrations:
"Checking if the context targets an existing database...
No MigrationSqlGenerator found for provider
> I'd like to do this. But when I register it in provider services, it does
> not work. Not sure why.
Ahh. Finally found it. IdbInterceptors are not supported for registration in
DbProviderServices. So we're probably left with only DbInterception.Add. I did
some research and looks it should work
> One more question, how can I register custom implementation of
> IFbMigrationSqlGeneratorBehavior?
Register MigrationSqlGenerator with FbMigrationSqlGenerator and pass the
implementation to ctor. Something like:
AddDependencyResolver(new
SingletonDependencyResolver>(() => new
FbMigrationSqlGe
> or maybe via AddDependencyResolver(new
> SingletonDependencyResolver()) as suggested in
> documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/ru-
> ru/library/system.data.entity.dbconfiguration.addinterceptor(v=vs.113).asp
> x),
I'd like to do this. But when I register it in provider services, it does not
One more question, how can I register custom implementation of
IFbMigrationSqlGeneratorBehavior?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Геннадий Забула wrote:
> According to this:
> http://entityframework.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Interception
> As I understand DbConfiguration.AddInterceptor is for
According to this:
http://entityframework.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=Interception
As I understand DbConfiguration.AddInterceptor is for context instance
interceptions.
And DbInterceptors.AddInterceptor is for global-wide interceptions.
I suggest moving registration MigrationsTransactionsIntercepto
Yeah, but it’s different path. The InternalConfiguration class might or might
not like that (now or in the future). It’s problem waiting to happen.
And please stop sending HTML emails.
--
Mgr. Jiří Činčura
Independent IT Specialist
--
> That’s not the same as what AddInterceptor call does.
As far as I see in the debugger, MigrationsTransactionsInterceptor is
called successfully and failed tests are going further. I've added just one
fix to filter just Firebird connections:
public void BeginningTransaction(DbConnection connection
The name for index is created by EF if the explicit value is not provided.
--
Mgr. Jiří Činčura
Independent IT Specialist
--
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming! The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and d
That’s not the same as what AddInterceptor call does.
--
Mgr. Jiří Činčura
Independent IT Specialist
From: Геннадий Забула [mailto:zabulu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 10:36 AM
To: For users and developers of the Firebird .NET providers
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] EF
One more thing about naming indexes conventions. Indexes namespace is
global. So if you have several same fields in different tables, you'll have
the same name index for both. Good example in three entities with N:M
relations:
Entity1: eid, name
Entity2: eid, name
Entity3: eid, name
Entity1Entity3:
And looks like it works:
public FbProviderServices()
{
#if (EF_6)
AddDependencyResolver(new
SingletonDependencyResolver(new
FbConnectionFactory()));
AddDependencyResolver(new
SingletonDependencyResolver>(() => new
FbMigrationSqlGenerator(), ProviderInvariantName));
System.Data.Entity.Infrastructur
I've found out that there is the static class:
System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.Interception.DbInterception, which adds
IDbInterceptor,
2014-12-30 11:23 GMT+02:00 Jiří Činčura :
> > I'm using the same Context for both MSSQL and Firebird, how deriving
> from FbDbConfiguration can affect MSSQL cod
> I'm using the same Context for both MSSQL and Firebird, how deriving from
> FbDbConfiguration can affect MSSQL code path? Can we override this somehow
> just in Firebird provider?
You can use the same context. It's just configuration. I'm waiting for reply
from EF guys to see what other optio
transaction and you need to insert into __MigrationHistory right after
> creation. Disaster.
>
> --
> Mgr. Jiří Činčura
> Independent IT Specialist
>
> From: Геннадий Забула [mailto:zabulu...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:19 AM
> To: For users and developers o
From: Геннадий Забула [mailto:zabulu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 8:19 AM
To: For users and developers of the Firebird .NET providers
Subject: Re: [Firebird-net-provider] EF Migrations
Fall in next query:
EXECUTE BLOCK
AS
BEGIN
EXECUTE STATEMENT
'CR
> 1. Generator ID. One for all is bad options for me. I'll reimplement it to
> have one for table.
That's why it's open.
> 2. Couple of errors in creating Constraints or Indexes:
"unsuccessful metadata update
Name longer than database column size"
Constraint names are longer than it can be in sy
Fall in next query:
EXECUTE BLOCK
AS
BEGIN
EXECUTE STATEMENT
'CREATE TABLE "__MigrationHistory" (
"MigrationId" VARCHAR(150) NOT NULL,
"ContextKey" VARCHAR(300) NOT NULL,
"Model" BLOB SUB_TYPE BINARY NOT NULL,
"ProductVersion" VARCHAR(32) NOT NULL
)'
WITH AUTONOMOUS TRANSACTION;
END
Parameters:
Wit
Here are my issues/suggestions:
1. Generator ID. One for all is bad options for me. I'll reimplement it to
have one for table.
2. Couple of errors in creating Constraints or Indexes:
"unsuccessful metadata update
Name longer than database column size"
Constraint names are longer than it can be in s
On 2014.11.06 3:06 PM, Jiří Činčura wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> Anybody here willing to give EF Migrations a try? I'm getting close to first
> implementation.
>
I'm trying to add support for Firebird db for existing app on SQL
Express, and, first run of the application was with no errors and
created the
Don't have enough time to merge and test it. I look forward to test it and
write some feedback on next week.
2014-11-13 18:31 GMT+02:00 Jiří Činčura :
> Except for "identity" generation should be "done": http://ge.tt/3OSvoR42 .
>
> Some feedback?
>
> --
> Mgr. Jiří Činčura
> Independent IT Specia
Except for "identity" generation should be "done": http://ge.tt/3OSvoR42 .
Some feedback?
--
Mgr. Jiří Činčura
Independent IT Specialist
--
Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
> Exactly. I'm currently planning to investigate whether EF allows adding 3rd
> party services/interfaces to be resolved. And how clean that looks like.
OK, so this is not a way. Not only the "resolver" is not acessible it's also
DbConfiguration related not DbMigrationsConfiguration.
Maybe it's
And BTW does anybody has some detailed information about "Although this form of
EXECUTE STATEMENT can also be used with all kinds of DDL strings (except
CREATE/DROP DATABASE), it is generally very, very unwise to use this trick in
order to circumvent the no-DDL rule in PSQL.", which I'm using to
So anybody tested migrations?
--
Mgr. Jiří Činčura
Independent IT Specialist
--
Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push n
I've asked about mutual exclusive of schemes.
If schemes can be applied in one model you can use custom attributes on
primary keys.
If schemes are mutual exclusive, you can use custom extension method for
model builder.
2014-11-09 13:12 GMT+02:00 Jiří Činčura :
> > The update script should not be
> The update script should not be changed by users generated by migration. Or
> maybe I don't know something?
Not exactly. There's assumption that the script will not be mostly changed. But
some DBA in some "classic" environments might change it.
> We need to inject some implementation through
> It kind of breaks the notion of altering the table/column with one
command. It's a bit of magic with system tables and people might get
confused or break it by chaning the script.
The update script should not be changed by users generated by migration. Or
maybe I don't know something?
> MSSQL has
> 1. What problem in Execute block?
It kind of breaks the notion of altering the table/column with one command.
It's a bit of magic with system tables and people might get confused or break
it by chaning the script.
> 2. My opinion for "Identity" is to copy MSSQL behavior. Create generator for
Can you provide it on github, so I can patch my copy of FB library to use
in our project?
1. What problem in Execute block?
2. My opinion for "Identity" is to copy MSSQL behavior. Create generator
for each primary key + trigger before insert.
2014-11-08 14:38 GMT+02:00 Jiří Činčura :
> Great. H
Great. Here's http://ge.tt/2Cx9f142?c early implementation. There are two
issues which I'm not sure how to do (see below). Rest should work. But there
might be some missing space etc. in generated SQL or I might wrote it in
different engine's dialect. That's what I'm mostly looking for for this
On 2014.11.06 3:06 PM, Jiří Činčura wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> Anybody here willing to give EF Migrations a try? I'm getting close to first
> implementation.
>
I'm in.
Paul MERCEA
___
--
Sure, waiting for this.
2014-11-06 15:06 GMT+02:00 Jiří Činčura :
> Hi *,
>
> Anybody here willing to give EF Migrations a try? I'm getting close to
> first implementation.
>
> --
> Mgr. Jiří Činčura
> Independent IT Specialist
>
>
> ---
Hi *,
Anybody here willing to give EF Migrations a try? I'm getting close to first
implementation.
--
Mgr. Jiří Činčura
Independent IT Specialist
--
___
Firebird-net-provider
34 matches
Mail list logo
