Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

What is the rationale of having Cascade as a DeleteAction in EntityFramework.Core?

+1
−0

I have noticed some time ago that Entity Framework assumes a CASCADE behaviour (implicit value, if not specified) for referential constraints (FKs) when deleting items.

This means that by default, if a parent record is removed, all descendants are removed.

I remember that back in the days, when database first was still heavily used and database objects were created through SQL scripts rather than through migrations, I received the advice to never use DELETE CASCADE to prevent unwanted deleted items. Back then that made perfect sense since recovering deleted data is not exactly trivial.

Coming to my question: why have DELETE CASCADE as an implicit option for foreign keys in Entity Framework Core?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+1
−0

After toying a little more with Delete actions for referentials, I think the rational of having the CASCADE DELETE as default is the following:

  • having to DELETE the children before the parent is not actually trivial (clearing the navigation properties collections first leads to a save error, removing the children and saving creates lots of delete queries).

  • back in the days there was a more database centered (first) approach (e.g. much business logic in stored procedures, many queries to be run directly from a SQL client) and less focus on automatic testing. Since the logic is more "code-first" now and more focus on test coverage it is harder to accidently remove data in cascade.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »