entity-framework-5

I am getting this error when I try to use code first migrations. My context has a constructor with the connection name. public class VeraContext : DbContext, IDbContext { public VeraContext(string NameOrConnectionStringName = "VeraDB") : base(NameOrConnectionStringName) { } public IDbSet<User> Users { get; set; } public IDbSet<Product> Products { get; set; } public IDbSet<IntCat> IntCats { get; set; } } This connection name is injected with ninject when the project runs, I have also specified it as a default as in the above code but this did not help. kernel.Bind<IDbContext>() .To<VeraContext>

I just upgraded my MVC4 project to .NET 4.5 and EF5 and started using VS2012. After realizing I needed to set-up auto-migrations in the Package Manager again I ran Enable-Migrations - EnableAutomaticMigrations and received the error No context type was found in the assembly 'MySolutionName'. Some Research has said that it has to do with EF5 not enabling prereleases. I ran Install-Package EntityFramework -IncludePrerelease but it said EF5 was already installed (which it was when I installed it through the NuGetmanager earlier without specifying -IncludePrerelease. Does anyone know what I have

In Entity Framework 5 model first, there seem to be some breaking changes due to the way the class files are generated (No more code generation, but T4 templates) 2 examples: The generated context file doesn't implement IDisposable anymore There isn't a constructor which takes a connectionstring anymore Are there more breaking changes? And what is the solution to them? The default code generated from a model in Entity Framework 5 now inherits DbContext instead of ObjectContext. This still implements IDisposable, but if you're getting an error from a line of code similar to this: using (var

I want to enforce Unique constraint in a table & I am using Entity Framework Code-First. Is it possible to add a unique constraint using EF 6 as i believe in earlier versions it was not possible. It appears that the unique constraint feature that was scheduled to release with Version 6 got pushed to 6.1. With EF 6.1, you can define a constraint using the Index attribute as shown below: [Index("IX_FirstAndSecond", 1, IsUnique = true)] public int FirstColumn { get; set; } [Index("IX_FirstAndSecond", 2, IsUnique = true)] public int SecondColumn { get; set; } OR You can use Fluent API as shown

Is it possible to do any type of programmatic data transformation in Entity Framework 5 Code First migrations? There is an Sql () method to execute queries, but it has return type void and I don't see any way to get the results of the queries I perform. Example I have table Recipe with one-to-many relationship to Ingredient . For various reasons I want to convert this to a Ingredients JSON string property instead. The only approach I can think of is something like this: Create new column IngredientsJson For each recipe, query its ingredients, construct a JSON string programmatically and insert

I have seen some code sample that put an entity framework connection string as a constructor argument when creating a new DbContext. But when I added a new ADO.NET entity data model into a project (database first), the DbContext only has one parameterless constructor. Did I miss a step? What should I do to get that constructor? Visual Studio 2012 targeting .net framework 4.5 entity framework 5. As per Arthur Vickers' suggestion, I am extending the partial class to have a constructor that accepts connection string. In C# (very similar to hege's answer): public partial class MyEFEntities {

I wonder if there is any chance to change name of foreign key constraint generated by Entity Framework when using code first. I have two entities - User and Group - with many-to-many relationship so there is an association table GroupUser . Unfortunately, auto-generated foreign key constraints are named FK_dbo.GroupUser_dbo.User_User_UserId and FK_dbo.GroupUser_dbo.Group_Group_GroupId . I would like to have foreign key constraints called like FK_GroupUser_UserId and FK_GroupUser_GroupId . That looks much cleaner to me. It's not possible to customize the foreign key constraint name with data