This is the query:
using (var db = new AppDbContext())
{
var item = new IdentityItem {Id = 418, Name = "Abrahadabra" };
db.IdentityItems.Add(item);
db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("SET IDENTITY_INSERT Test.Items ON;");
db.SaveChanges();
}
When executed, the Id
of the inserted record, on a new table, is still 1.
NEW: When I use either the transaction, or TGlatzer's answer, I get the exception:
Explicit value must be specified for identity column in table 'Items' either when IDENTITY_INSERT is set to ON or when a replication user is inserting into a NOT FOR REPLICATION identity column.
This must never be used in production code,it is just for fun
I see that mine is still the accepted answer,again, not do use this (to solve this problem), check the other answers below
I do not suggest this because it is a crazy hack but anyway.
I think we can achieve it by intercepting the SQL command and changing the command text
(you can inherit from DbCommandInterceptor and override ReaderExecuting)
I don't have a working example at the moment and I have to go but I think it is doable
Sample code
public class MyDbInterceptor : DbCommandInterceptor
{
public override void ReaderExecuting(DbCommand command, DbCommandInterceptionContext<DbDataReader> interceptionContext)
{
if (is your table)
{
command.CommandText = "Set Identity off ,update insert into ,Set Identity off"
return;
}
base.ReaderExecuting(command, interceptionContext);
}
}
ORMs are a nice abstraction and I really like them but I don't think it makes sense to try to "hack" them to support lower(closer to the db) level operations.
I try to avoid stored procs but I think in this (as you said exceptional) case I think you should use one