dotnet
database EnsureDeleted & EnsureCreated
docs at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/testing/testing-with-the-database#efficient-database-creation debate when EnsureX is called (worrying about outdated schema). Surely this 1-off db drop+create could be best implemented in a static ctor since this must be executed [once] before any instance ctor is invoked ?
Document Details
⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.
- ID: b7fc3c3b-c859-2ad5-78f3-ce57d3c9bc2d
- Version Independent ID: b7fc3c3b-c859-2ad5-78f3-ce57d3c9bc2d
- Content: Testing against your Production Database System - EF Core
- Content Source: entity-framework/core/testing/testing-with-the-database.md
- Product: entity-framework
- Technology: entity-framework-core
- GitHub Login: @roji
- Microsoft Alias: avickers
@DickBaker the drop+create in the samples on that page are already placed in an xunit class fixture, which means that these operations execute once, before the tests are executed.
However, database drop and create still are relatively heavy operations, and when quickly iterating over code changes and re-running tests over and over, it may be worth temporarily commenting those lines out. Hope that makes sense.
@roji, yes the fixture means 1-off, but propose guideline to devs to employ static ctor anyway in their own code. I agree heavy impact, but EnsureCreated should be quick if db does exist (and if it doesn't it is obviously worth its o/h). Anyway I wasn't a great fan of the "DELETE FROM [Blogs] WHERE 1=1;" either as WHERE clause seems unnecessary (also assuming cascade delete of any Posts, Ratings etc child rows). Happy to accept your decision if any changes merited, so please close this #4028 when done.
yes the fixture means 1-off, but propose guideline to devs to employ static ctor anyway in their own code.
What's the advantage of using a static constructor rather than the class fixture? The point of doing it in a class fixture is that the same fixture type can be used multiple times to manage different databases; this isn't possible with a static constructor, which runs only once.
I agree heavy impact, but EnsureCreated should be quick if db does exist (and if it doesn't it is obviously worth its o/h).
In any normal development process, the database always already exists from the last time you ran the tests.
Anyway I wasn't a great fan of the "DELETE FROM [Blogs] WHERE 1=1;" either as WHERE clause seems unnecessary (also assuming cascade delete of any Posts, Ratings etc child rows).
The WHERE clause is required on SQL Server (which is what the sample is for).
The "DELETE FROM [Blogs] WHERE 1=1;" clause is required on SQL Server (which is what the sample is for) please explain why this is necessary. Are you sure MSSQL doesn't require a "DELETE FROM [Blogs] WHERE 1=1 and 2=2;" ?
@DickBaker just try it out on SQL Server. Doing DELETE FROM table errors with 'Delete' statement without 'where' clears all data in the table. It's a "safety mechanism" to prevent unintentional deletion of all rows in the table; specifying the (always true) WHERE clause silences it.
weird! Trying to repro your experience I have just tried my SSMS apps v17.9.1 [aka 14..0.17289.0] v18.12.1 [aka 15.0.18424.0] v19.0 Preview 3 [aka 16.0.19061.0 and [outdated] ADS v1.32.0 (user setup) dated 2021-08-16 on a small db on my .\MSSQLLocalDb ("Blogging"), and my local PROD ("Relations") with no errors as per attached
I am aware that SSMS has a Tools, Options, Designers, Table and Database Designers : "Prevent saving changes that require table re-creation" to prevent meltdowns, but I could find no other config settings server/client-side to explain your UX
Please run the @@version, sp_configure stuff, SSMS/ADS options and any QP (& qry opts) so we can see what is causing that.
Roji, I have to admit shock that there is [somewhere] a "safety mechanism" imposed by some nanny-state buffoon, and that this is so easily defeated by adding a spurious WHERE clause.
Ditto that I had never hit that speed-bump, so I apologise for reacting with horror/disbelief to your "necessary" comment! Dick4Roji.zip
update .. I tried SO that mentioned AWS Redshift but no help to us here
I have now found these gems that suggests this is a JetBrains client-side "help" https://intellij-support.jetbrains.com/hc/en-us/community/posts/4410218655122-delete-without-where-not-possible https://www.jetbrains.com/help/phpstorm/sql-delete-or-update-statement-without-where-clauses.html
so maybe not a server-side (MSSQL on-prem or Azure MI/etc cloud) problem afterr all. Please tell me the EF team is not writing code destined for back-end MSSQL as knee-jerk reaction to the dummy-nanny of a J-B client-side tool !
Could be that I was writing my docs SQL samples on Jetbrains... Please feel free to submit a quick PR removing that WHERE clause.
thanks for admission; best larf I've had today.
I have raised Issue #4060 and will leave you to clear up the doc +/- code mess sorry I can't muster the strength to raise a formal PR with all the MD for this trivial change
actually I am relieved that the MSSQL wizards haven't been infiltrated by some woke nanny/PHB enforcing global equality & diversity (or in UK the Health & Safety nannies)
As you & Arfur have dismissed my #4028 I feel like we have at least reached a 15-all deuce!
sorry I can't muster the strength to raise a formal PR with all the MD for this trivial change
Is it really that hard? It's literally just clicking this button:
You don't need to do any markdown, just delete that clause...