I know I'm not solving your actual problem but could you use a separate SQL database for EF? That was the approach I took and managed to get things wired up ok!
There are people who believe that using a separate database for non umbraco data is the safer / right approach to take anyway! At least then you know that Umbraco migrations and EF migrations would never have any conflict. Good luck :)
I actually thought you had a solution you wanted to share?, because I still have problems using the
"Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer"
package, when I install that package it's a bit like there is a conflict and umbraco doesn't know how to use the UmbracoDBDSN connection string and goes directly to the install umbraco page.
so do you have a running example where you connect to two DB´s ? if so can you tell me how you did it without this "conflict" using
"Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer"
you have to use a separate connection string and context for your EF and you have to use the same Umbraco package version of Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer.
I ran into this issue in 13.5.2 recently and none of the above worked for me. The problem was that I was following the Umbraco documentation for connecting for custom data which applies to data within the same database as the main Umbraco instance.
There was a chat over in Discord that helped me out, basically instead of builder.Services.AddUmbracoDbContext you should use builder.Services.AddDbContext and then instead of using the IEFCoreScopeProvider use a TransactionScope, like so:
public class CustomDataRepository(MyDbContext myDbContext)
{
public async Task<IEnumerable<SomeClass>> GetAll()
{
using (var scope = new TransactionScope())
{
var data = myDbContext.SomeClasses.ToList();
scope.Complete();
return data;
}
}
}
EF Core, DBContext and Umbraco 10
I have run into a problem when i am using
"Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer"I add my DBContext like this to startup
Then umbraco DB connection fails and Umbraco returns to showing install page any thoughts on why ?
I need to access custom tables with EF
Hi René,
I know I'm not solving your actual problem but could you use a separate SQL database for EF? That was the approach I took and managed to get things wired up ok!
Just a thought :)
Lotte
Any ideas are welcome :)
so yes i could use a setup where i just use another DB to store my custom tables in.
There are people who believe that using a separate database for non umbraco data is the safer / right approach to take anyway! At least then you know that Umbraco migrations and EF migrations would never have any conflict. Good luck :)
I actually thought you had a solution you wanted to share?, because I still have problems using the
package, when I install that package it's a bit like there is a conflict and umbraco doesn't know how to use the UmbracoDBDSN connection string and goes directly to the install umbraco page.
so do you have a running example where you connect to two DB´s ? if so can you tell me how you did it without this "conflict" using "Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer"
Hi,
you have to use a separate connection string and context for your EF and you have to use the same Umbraco package version of Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer.
I just came across the same issue. I resolved by adding the following references in the project file, Item group:
The build status told me which packages to reference.
I ran into this issue in 13.5.2 recently and none of the above worked for me. The problem was that I was following the Umbraco documentation for connecting for custom data which applies to data within the same database as the main Umbraco instance.
There was a chat over in Discord that helped me out, basically instead of
builder.Services.AddUmbracoDbContextyou should usebuilder.Services.AddDbContextand then instead of using theIEFCoreScopeProvideruse aTransactionScope, like so:Elsewhere in your code....
Here's the Discord chat for more reference.
is working on a reply...