I'm using EF 6.0 and code-first approach.
I have problem with create and update data in db via Entity Framework. I'm not sure if I need to make db.Groups.Attach(student.Group) before storing Student. Without this after saving Student I also have new Group with the same Name but other GroupId.
Moreover I can't update student because I'm getting exception: The relationship between the two objects cannot be defined because they are attached to different ObjectContext objects.
public class Student {
[Key]
public int StudentId {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
public Group Group {get; set;}
}
public class Group {
[Key]
public int GroupId{ get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
public virtual ICollection<Student> Students {get; set;}
}
.
public class StudentDao {
public void createStudent(Student student) {
using (var db = new StorageContext()) {
// without this also creates new Group.
db.Groups.Attach(student.Group);
db.Students.Add(student);
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
public void updateStudent(Student student) {
using (var db = new StorageContext()) {
var original = db.Students.Find(student.StudentId);
if (original != null) {
original.Name = student.Name;
original.Group = student.Group;
db.SaveChanges(); //exception
}
}
}
}
Without this (db.Groups.Attach(student.Group)) after saving Student I also have new Group
That's because Adding an entity to a DbSet marks all adhering entities that are not yet tracked by the context as Added. This is an EF feature, like it or not, so you have to first attach the entities you don't want to re-insert.
Moreover I can't update student because I'm getting exception
For some reason, in the update method the student and its group are still attached to a context. Apparently, there is some other context active in the StudentDao class. You have to make sure this context's lifespan is over when you update the student or else (second best) detach the student and the group from it.
An off-topic advice: if you can, abandon this DAO pattern. EF works much better when you use the DbContext and its DbSets in service-like methods that handle one unit of work. With these DAO's it's impossible to work transactionally and they cause piles of repeated code.
Been a while since I worked on Entity but from what I remember you can't just change the Group, you have to give it a GroupID field as well, change that instead and then reload/update the Student object from the database so that the Group object gets loaded and assigned from within the same context.
This is just one of the reasons I use NHibernate.
Related
I'm setting up .NET Core API. My application is divided into 3 layers:
Data Access
Business Logic/Services
API
I'm having troubles added related objects with the API method. Let's say I have following classes.
public class Part
{
[Key]public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
public string ICollection<PartAttribute> PartAttributes{get; set;}
}
public class PartAttribute
{
[Key]public int Id {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
public string Value {get; set;}
}
And following methods for interaction with DB - context is EF DbContext:
public virtual void Add(T entity)
{
Context.Set<T>()
.Add(entity);
}
I'm having trouble adding Part that have already existing PartAttributes, if I send following JSON via API (assuming that following record in PartAttributes already exist)
{
"Name":"Example1",
"PartAttributes":[
{
"attributeId":1,
"name":"Color",
"value":"black"
}]
}
I'm getting a following exception: "Cannot insert explicit value for identity column in table 'PartAttributes' when IDENTITY_INSERT is set to OFF." - This leads me to conclusion that EF is not recognizing the existing record and tries to insert it as new one. This results in fail because of identity insert setting in SQL Server itself.
What I'd like to achieve is that the existing objects would be recognized and EF would not try to insert the existing attributes as new records in the database. What are the best practices to achieve that behaviour?
You need to take your primary key (which here looks to be attributeId) and load the record using the dbContext. Once loaded update the values and call SaveChanges() or SaveChangesAsync() on the context.
You can even have a method that does insert or update.
for example (SUDO CODE!):
public void InsertOrUpdate(PartAttribute model)
{
var existingRecord = dbContext.Set<PartAttribute>().Find(model.attributeId);
if(existingRecord == null)
{ // Insert (Should not include value for attributeId)
dbContext.Add(model);
}
else
{ // Update
existingRecord = model;
dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
Please let me know if you still have issues
This might be asked before but I can't seem to find a solution on the site so here we go:
Here is an oversimplified version of my domain model. I have 2 classes representing 2 tables in the database:
public Class Person
{
public int Id { get; set;}
public string Name { get; set;}
public virtual List<Contact> Contacts { get; set;}
public void AddContact(string value)
{
//some validation code
Contacts.Add(new Contact(value));
}
public void DeleteContact(Contact contact)
{
//some validation code
Contacts.Remove(contact);
}
}
public Class Contact
{
public int Id { get; set;}
public string Value { get; set;}
public virtual Person Person { get; set;}
public int PersonId { get; set;}
}
Now Person is my aggregate root here. I am trying to follow the DDD principal by only making the repository for the aggregate root. Adding contact works fine.
The problem I have is when deleting the contact. It gives the error:
The operation failed: The relationship could not be changed because one or more of the foreign-key properties is non-nullable. When a change is made to a relationship, the related foreign-key property is set to a null value. If the foreign-key does not support null values, a new relationship must be defined, the foreign-key property must be assigned another non-null value, or the unrelated object must be deleted.
Is there anyway past it. If the relation property is non-nullable shouldn't entity framework automatically delete the contact.
Now I know that deleting from the collection is not the same as deleting it from the context but I don't want to reference DbContext from my domain model.
I only have PersonRepository.
Kindly provide a solution or help me understand if I am getting any concept wrong.
That's a common problem when doing DDD with EF. Two solutions worked well for me so far:
Return the removed instance from your DeleteContact method. The method is most probably called from an application service which holds a repository. You can then use it to remove the instance from DbContext.
If you use domain events you can use one to notify others about contact removal. You could then place a handler for this event in the infrastructure layer which would remove the contact from DbContext.
It looks like you're having the same problem as in this post. Basically, when you remove the contact from the collection, you are not actually deleting it; you are only orphaning it, and in the process, setting its PersonId to null (which is not possible for an int, of course).
One possible solution is to make PersonId nullable in the Contact class:
public int? PersonId { get; set; }
Then, in your DbContext, override SaveChanges to automatically delete the orphaned records:
public override int SaveChanges()
{
foreach (Contact contact in Contacts.Local.Where(c => c.PersonId == null))
{
Contacts.Remove(contact);
}
return base.SaveChanges();
}
Disclaimer: I haven't tested that code but hopefully it is a good starting point.
So perhaps I'm addressing this problem the wrong way, but I wanted to get the opinion from you fine people on StackOverflow about how to more correctly do this.
I've got a program that has to retrieve information from a repository around an Entity Framework 6.0 code-first context, do some work on the information contained and then it adds a new record to the database.
Anyway, here's the simplified look at the class I'm retrieving from EF through the repository:
public class Product
{
public int Id { get;set; }
public virtual ProductCategory Category { get;set; }
public string Name { get;set; }
}
I then build a ProcessedProduct with the following definition and pass in the previously retrieved Product as the BaseProduct:
public class ProcessedProduct
{
public int Id { get;set; }
public virtual Product BaseProduct { get;set; }
}
I use a repository layer that I saw on an EF lesson on Pluralsight and have purposed here. I've added all the relevant bits below:
public class MyContext : BaseContext<MyContext>, IMyContext
{
//Lots of IDbSets for each context
public void SetModified(object entity)
{
Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
public void SetAdd(object entity)
{
Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Added;
}
}
public class MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
private readonly IMyContext _context;
public MyRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
{
_context = uow.Context as IMyContext;
}
public ProcessedProduct FindProcessedProduct(int id)
{
return _context.ProcessedProducts.Find(id);
}
public ProductCategory FindCategory(int id)
{
return _context.Categories.Find(id);
}
public int AddProcessedProductWithoutProduct(ProcessedProduct newRecord)
{
newRecord.Product = null;
Save();
return newRecord.Id;
}
public int UpdateProcessedProductWithProductButWithoutChildProperties(int processedProductId, int productId)
{
var processedProduct = FindProcessedProduct(processedProductId);
processedProduct.BaseProduct = FindProduct(productId);
processedProduct.BaseProduct.Category = null;
_context.SetModified(product);
Save();
return processedProduct.Id;
}
public int UpdateProductChildren(int processedProductId, int categoryId)
{
var processedProduct = FindProcessedProduct(processedProductId);
var category = FindCategory(categoryId);
processedProduct.BaseProduct.Category = category;
_context.SetModified(product);
Save();
return processedProduct.Id;
}
}
And finally, here's the portion that pulls it all together:
try
{
//Create the processed product without the product instance
var processedProductId = repo.AddProcessedProductWithoutProduct(finishedProduct);
//Now, update this processed product record with the product. This way, we don't create a
//duplicate product.
processedProductId = repo.UpdateProcessedProductWithProductButWithoutChildProperties(processedProductId, product.Id);
//Finally, update the category
processedProductId = repo.UpdateProductChildren(processedProductId, product.Category.Id);
//Done!
}
When I attempt to insert this ProcessedProduct into EF, it correctly creates the ProcessedProduct record, but it also creates a new Product and new Category row. I've tried manually changing the change tracking for each object so ProcessedProduct would be 'added' and the others would be either 'modified' or 'unchanged', but I would get foreign key reference exceptions thrown by Entity Framework.
My "fix" was to simply break this up into a number of different calls:
I create the new ProcessedProduct record, but I assign the Product value to null.
I query for that ProcessedProduct record with the Id, query for the appropriate Product with its Id and assign that Product to the newly retrieved ProcessedProduct record. However, I have to null out the Category property or else this will add a new duplicate Category record. I save and the ProcessedProduct record is modified.
Finally, I query the ProcessedProduct once more as well as the ProductCategory and then assign that ProductCategory to the Category property of the ProcessedProduct.BaseProduct. I can save once more and now I've created all the records I need without making any of the duplicates.
However, this approach seems quite convoluted since all I originally wanted to do is save the new parent record and simply not create duplicate child records. Is there a better way to go about doing this that I'm missing? Thanks!
Edit: And I guess the larger question is say I have a complex object with a whole bunch of these child complex objects. What's the easiest way to create a new parent without having to go through the entire graph of child objects to update the parent with them one layer at a time?
I highly recommend not setting Product & Category as navigation properties when editing. As you saw when you add the graph of processed product (with a product & category attached) to the EF context, it's marking everything in the graph as added and does inserts on everything.
The pattern I always recommend (and Nikolai also suggested in his comment, so up-vote his comment like I did :)) is to include the FK IDs in your entity and set those values, not the navigations. e.g.
newRecord.ProductId=theProductIdValue.
I've had many people cry "but foreign keys? ewwww! They will make my classes so dirty and impure!" but after they see how much easier it is to code things without tangling with the navigations in these scenarios, they have come back to say "okay, it was worth it!"
BTW if you are talking about my EF in the Enterprise course, I have a whole module about dealing with this problem...it's called something bout graphs in disconnected scenarios. :)
I am using Entity Framework 4.3 Code First, and I have problem with updating many-to-many relationships.
I defined the following classes:
public abstract class Entity
{
[Column(Order = 0)]
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Timestamp]
[Column(Order = 1)]
public byte[] Version { get; set; }
}
public class Video : Entity
{
public string Title { get; set; }
public string Description { get; set; }
public TimeSpan Length { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Coworker> Coworkers { get; set; }
}
public class Coworker : Entity
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Video> Videos { get; set; }
}
When the database is created, the schema look right:
There is a Videos, Coworkers and VideoCoworkers table too, without
I use repository pattern in an N-Tier application to access database, my Insert and Update method looks like this:
public T Insert(T entity)
{
//Creates database context. When it disposes, it calls context.SaveChanges()
using (var session = new DatabaseSession())
{
session.Context.Set<T>().Add(entity);
}
}
public T Update(T entity)
{
//Creates database context. When it disposes, it calls context.SaveChanges()
using (var session = new DatabaseSession())
{
entity = session.Context.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
session.Context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
return entity;
}
When I update an entity, I create the entity object from a DTO, that's why use DbSet.Attach instead of selecting it and updating the properties one-by-one.
When I initialize the database, I add some test data:
Create 3 Coworkers, where I set first and last name. (A, B, C)
Create 3 Videos, where I set title, description and length, and also set some coworkers. First video has A,B, second has B,C and third has A,C.
When I list the Videos from code, I can see that Video.Coworkers collection is filled with good values, and when I query the link table (VideoCoworkers) in SQL Server Management Studio, it also looks good.
My problem is
when I update for example the title of the Video, it works. But when I try to delete from Video2 the existing coworkers (B and C), and try to add coworker A, then the relationship is not updated. It also does not work when I only try to add new coworker, or only try to delete one. I create the entity which is used as the parameter of the Update() method by creating a new Video entity with a new collection of Coworkers (which are selected from the database with Find() method by Id).
What is the correct way to update many-to-many relationships?
But when I try to delete from Video2 the existing coworkers (B and C),
and try to add coworker A, then the relationship is not updated.
Without using a generic repository the correct procedure would be:
using (var session = new DatabaseSession())
{
video2 = session.Context.Set<Video>().Include(v => v.Coworkers)
.Single(v => v.Id == video2Id);
coworkerA = new Coworker { Id = coworkerAId };
session.Context.Set<Coworker>().Attach(coworkerA);
video2.Coworkers.Clear();
video2.Coworkers.Add(coworkerA)
session.Context.SaveChanges();
}
The essential part is that you must load or attach the entity in its original state, change the entity, i.e. remove and add children, and then save the changes. EF's change detection will create the necessary INSERT and DELETE statements for the link table entries. The simple procedure to set the state to Modified you are trying in your generic Update method is suited only for updating scalar properties - like changing the video title - but won't work for updating relationships between entities.
For solve this problem:
attach the entity to context
load the collection(the collection is not loaded, because )
change the state of entity to modified
save changes
So your code for update should be like this:
public Video Update(Video entity)
{
//Creates database context. When it disposes, it calls context.SaveChanges()
using (var session = new DatabaseSession())
{
entity = session.Context.Set<Video>().Attach(entity);
session.Context.Entry(entity).Collection(p => p.Coworkers).Load();
session.Context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
return entity;
}
Please refer here to see how to save master detail in asp.net mvc with database first. Hopefully it will give you the idea about the code first. You may also have a look at knokout.js example
I have two classes:
public class Company
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
public class User
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Company> Companies { get; set; }
}
In my MVC application controller get new Company from post. I want to add current user to created Company in something like this.
User user = GetCurrentLoggedUser();
//company.Users = new ICollection<User>(); // Users is null :/
company.Users.Add(user); // NullReferenceException
companyRepository.InsertOrUpdate(company);
companyRepository.Save();
How it should look like to work properly? I don't know it yet but after adding user to collection I expect problems with saving it to database. Any tips on how it should look like would be appreciated.
Use this approach:
public class Company
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set;}
private ICollection<User> _users;
public ICollection<User> Users
{
get
{
return _users ?? (_users = new HashSet<User>());
}
set
{
_users = value;
}
}
}
HashSet is better then other collections if you also override Equals and GetHashCode in your entities. It will handle duplicities for you. Also lazy collection initialization is better. I don't remember it exactly, but I think I had some problems in one of my first EF test applications when I initialized the collection in the constructor and also used dynamic proxies for lazy loading and change tracking.
There are two types of entities: detached and attached. An attached entity is already tracked by the context. You usually get the attached entity from linq-to-entities query or by calling Create on DbSet. A detached entity is not tracked by context but once you call Attach or Add on the set to attach this entity all related entities will be attached / added as well. The only problem you have to deal with when working with detached entities is if related entity already exists in database and you only want to create new relation.
The main rule which you must understand is difference between Add and Attach method:
Add will attach all detached entities in graph as Added => all related entities will be inserted as new ones.
Attach will attach all detached entities in graph as Unchanged => you must manually say what has been modified.
You can manually set state of any attached entity by using:
context.Entry<TEntity>(entity).State = EntityState....;
When working with detached many-to-many you usually must use these techniques to build only relations instead of inserting duplicit entities to database.
By my own experience working with detached entity graphs is very hard especially after deleting relations and because of that I always load entity graphs from database and manually merge changes into attached graphs wich are able to fully track all changes for me.
Be aware that you can't mix entities from different contexts. If you want to attach entity from one context to another you must first explicitly detach entity from the first one. I hope you can do it by setting its state to Detached in the first context.
In your constructor for the Company entity you can create an empty collection on the Users property.
public class Company
{
public Company() {
Users = new Collection<User>();
}
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
As far as saving to the database is concerned, I asked a related question a few days ago and was assured that Entity Framework is able to track the changes made to related entities. Read up on that here:
Are child entities automatically tracked when added to a parent?