You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
But from my tests it looks like this works automatically when you have an ulong property with the Timestamp attribute.
I haven't tested it but I assume the same is true for fluent mapping via IsRowVersion().
So why does the documentation explicitly call HasConversion<byte[]>()?
The difference isn't that important with fluent mapping, but in the case of attribute mapping it's very important since there is no way to specify HasConversion<byte[]>() as an attribute.
Thanks, submitted #4727 to fix. Note that it's generally very easy to just open a PR suggesting a small change rather than describe it in an issue etc.
Type of issue
Missing information
Description
The section Numeric rowversions for SQL Azure/SQL Server is written in a way that implies that the call to
HasConversion<byte[]>()
is required to get this new feature to work.But from my tests it looks like this works automatically when you have an
ulong
property with theTimestamp
attribute.I haven't tested it but I assume the same is true for fluent mapping via
IsRowVersion()
.So why does the documentation explicitly call
HasConversion<byte[]>()
?The difference isn't that important with fluent mapping, but in the case of attribute mapping it's very important since there is no way to specify
HasConversion<byte[]>()
as an attribute.Page URL
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ef/core/what-is-new/ef-core-8.0/whatsnew#numeric-rowversions-for-sql-azuresql-server
Content source URL
https://github.com/dotnet/EntityFramework.Docs/blob/main/entity-framework/core/what-is-new/ef-core-8.0/whatsnew.md
Document Version Independent Id
97203c5d-fe52-b71e-dcb3-71c9492b4e04
Article author
@ajcvickers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: