Fluent nhibernate One-to-Many when Inverse is used Child table’s Foreign key is null

To get a bidirectional association with a not-null foreign key column in the Details table you can add the suggested Owner property, a References(...).CanNotBeNull() mapping in the DetailsMap class, and make the Summary end inverse.

To avoid having two different foreign key columns for the two association directions, you can either specify the column names manually or name the properties in a way that gives the same column name for both directions. In this case you I suggest renaming the Details.Owner property to Details.Summary.

I made the Summary id generated by increment to avoid problems when inserting into the table since Summary currenty has no columns besides id.

Domain:

public class Detail
{
    public int id { get; protected set; }
    public string ItemName { get; set; }

    // Renamed to use same column name as specified in the mapping of Summary.Details
    public Summary Summary {get; set;} 
}

public class Summary
{
    public Summary()
    {
        Details = new List<Detail>();
    }

    public int id { get; protected set; }
    public IList<Detail> Details { get; protected set; }
}

Mapping:

public class DetailMap : ClassMap<Detail>
{
    public DetailMap()
    {
        Id(x => x.id)
            .GeneratedBy.Native();

        Map(x => x.ItemName)
            .CanNotBeNull();

        References<Summary>(x => x.Summary)
            // If you don't want to rename the property in Summary,
            // you can do this instead:
            // .TheColumnNameIs("Summary_id")
            .CanNotBeNull();
    }
}

public class SummaryMap : ClassMap<Summary>
{
    public SummaryMap()
    {
        Id(x => x.id)
            .GeneratedBy.Increment();

        HasMany<Detail>(x => x.Details)
            .IsInverse()
            .AsBag(); // Use bag instead of list to avoid index updating issues
    }
}

As Matthieu says, the only case where you wouldn't want to set inverse = true is where it does not make sense for the child to be responsible for updating itself, such as in the case where the child has no knowledge of its parent.

Lets try a real world, and not at all contrived example:

<class name="SpyMaster" table="SpyMaster" lazy="true">
  <id name="Id">
    <generator class="identity"/>
  </id>
  <property name="Name"/>
  <set name="Spies" table="Spy" cascade="save-update">
    <key column="SpyMasterId"/>
    <one-to-many class="Spy"/>
  </set>
</class>

<class name="Spy" table="Spy" lazy="true">
  <id name="Id">
    <generator class="identity"/>
  </id>
  <property name="Name"/>
</class>

Spymasters can have spies, but spies never know who their spymaster is, because we have not included the many-to-one relationship in the spy class. Also (conveniently) a spy may turn rogue and so does not need to be associated with a spymaster. We can create entities as follows:

var sm = new SpyMaster
{
    Name = "Head of Operation Treadstone"
};
sm.Spies.Add(new Spy
{
    Name = "Bourne",
    //SpyMaster = sm // Can't do this
});
session.Save(sm);

In such a case you would set the FK column to be nullable because the act of saving sm would insert into the SpyMaster table and the Spy table, and only after that would it then update the Spy table to set the FK. In this case, if we were to set inverse = true, the FK would never get updated.