We Keep Coding

Distributed two-steps transaction including EF and web service call

I have a 'M' manager (conductor) instance, which controls two other instances 'A' and 'B'. 'A' is az Entity Framework data saver, 'B' calls an external web service to do something. The code of 'M' looks like:
// code inside 'M'
void Save()
B.Save()
A.Save()
This is a kind of distributed transaction. When B.Save drops exception, then A.Save should not happen or finish. Now I have to change it to works well. The problem is, that 'M' does not know anything about how an EF transaction works, or how to handle it, and A.Save cannot include the B.Save call. So I have to change it to somehow:
Object transaction = A.PrepareSave()
try {
B.Save()
}
catch {
A.RollbackSave(transaction)
throw
}
A.FinishSave(transaction)
Where the A.PrepareSave() looks like (?)
TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()
var context = CreateContext()
... do something EF ...
context.SaveChanges(false)
return new MyCustomTuple(scope,context)
And where A.FinishShave(Object trans) look as (?)
MyCustomTuple tuple = (MyCustomTuple)trans
TransactionScope scope = (TransactionScope)tuple.Scope
EFContext context = (EFContext)tuple.Context
scope.Complete()
context.AcceptAllChanges()
Question 1: is it ok? Is it the way to handle such a situation? (I have no influence on B.Save(), it saves or drops exception)
Question 2: how to free the resources (scope, context) at the end? The 'M' manager does not know anything about the MyCustomTuple and its contents.

You can use the TransactionScope right in the M method, you don't need to handle it in different parts of your code.
using (var transaction = new TransactionScope())
{
A.Save();
B.Save();
transaction.Complete();
}
This will complete if both save methods complete, otherwise an exception is thrown, no call to Complete() is made, so there is no commit. The using block will free the TransactionScope. As for disposing other resources, you can just do it the same way you're doing it now. You have not included any examples for this (I'd expect that the component that creates the context, maybe component A, handles the disposition of that context),

Snapshot isolation in SQL / code blocking reads

I suspect I don't understand fully what's going on or something weird is happening. (The first case is more likely I guess.)
The big picture:
I'm trying to have a web-service perform certain operations asynchronously as they can be time consuming and I don't want the client to wait for the operations to finish (just query for the results every now and again to see the operation is done).
The async code is wrapped in a transaction - in case something goes wrong, I want to be able to rollback any changes.
Unfortunately the last step of the async code is to call a DIFFERENT service which queries the same database.
Despite wrapping the whole thing in a Snapshot transaction, the last step fails as the service cannot read from the database.
For that matter, while the async operation is underway I cannot perform a simple SELECT statements from the database either.
Here's a sample of the code which I'm currently using to test out the transactions (using Entity Framework 5 model first):
using (var transaction = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope(System.Transactions.TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew, new System.Transactions.TransactionOptions() { IsolationLevel = System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.Snapshot }))
{
var db = new DataModelContainer();
Log test = new Log();
test.Message = "TEST";
test.Date = DateTime.UtcNow;
test.Details = "asd";
test.Type = "test";
test.StackTrace = "asd";
db.LogSet.Add(test);
db.SaveChanges();
using (var suppressed = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope(System.Transactions.TransactionScopeOption.Suppress))
{
var newDb = new DataModelContainer();
var log = newDb.LogSet.ToArray(); //deadlock here... WHY?
}
test = db.LogSet.Where(l => l.Message == "TEST").Single();
db.LogSet.Remove(test);
db.SaveChanges();
transaction.Complete();
}
The code creates a simple Log entry in the database (yeah, I'm playing around at the moment so the values are rubbish). I've set the SQL database to allow snapshot isolation, and to my knowledge reads should still be permitted (these are being tested in this code by using a new, suppressed transaction and a new DataModelContainer). However, I cannot query the LogSet in the suppressed transaction or in SQL Management Studio - the whole table is locked!
So... why? Why is it locked if the transaction scope is defined as such? I've also tried other isolation levels (like ReadUncommited) and I still cannot query the table.
Could someone please provide an explanation for this behavior?

In SSMS, set your current isolation level to SNAPSHOT and see if that corrects your problem - it's probably set to READ COMMITTED and would therefore still block due to pending updates.
Update:
You can allow READ COMMITTED to access versioned rows DB-wide by altering the following option (and avoiding having to constantly set the current isolation level to SNAPSHOT):
ALTER DATABASE MyDatabase
SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON

Database error after DeleteObject(...) / SaveChanges()

Context: web application / ASP.NET 4.0 / EF 4.0 / MSSQLEXPRESS2012
I'm trying to do a simple delete as follows:
if (someObject != null)
{
if (!context.IsAttached(someObject))
context.SomeObjects.Attach(someObject);
context.DeleteObject(someObject);
context.SaveChanges();
}
The code executes without problem and SaveChanges returns the expected number of rows. But when I try to read the table afterwards it times out (this happens in mssms as well as in code).
It also seems to corrupt other processes, returning '8501 MSDTC on server is unavailable' and "No process is on the other end of the pipe" on subsequent site access. Which of the three errors happens in the application seems somewhat random, but the timeout in mssms always happens.
Inserts and updates on the same table execute without problem.
Apart from reading through a zillion posts, I tried wrapping it in try/catch and transaction with SaveChanges(System.Data.Objects.SaveOptions.None) and manual AcceptAllChanges; the debugger shows the correct object just before delete - everything appears normal until table read or accessing another page.
I suspect somehow the lock is not released, but other objects in different tables successfully delete with the exact same logic. I'm not sure where best to look next - any ideas are greatly appreaciated!

must have made a mistake with transaction before - the following worked:
var transactionScope = new TransactionScope
(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew,
new TransactionOptions()
{
IsolationLevel = System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted
}
);
try
{
using (transactionScope)
{ ...etc
the following link explains more about the whys of explicit transactions
http://blogs.u2u.be/diederik/post/2010/06/29/Transactions-and-Connections-in-Entity-Framework-40.aspx
still not sure why it's working without transaction for the other deletes though

How to prevent EntityFramework deadlock when concurrently running these two statements

Calls into my web service use the following code to ensure that the caller has a valid session. If a valid session found then it updates the session details and saves the changes. All simple enough and works fine.
// Create the Entity Framework context
using(MyContext ctx = CreateMyContext())
{
// Get the user session for the client session
UserSession session = (from us in context.UserSessions.Include("UserEntity")
where us.SessionId = callerSessionId
select us).FirstOrDefault<UserSession>();
if (session == null)
return false;
else
{
// Update session details
session.Calls++;
session.LastAccessed = DateTime.Now.Ticks;
Console.WriteLine("Call by User:{0}", session.UserEntity.Name);
// Save session changes back to the server
ctx.SaveChanges();
return true;
}
}
All works fine until the same caller, and hence the same session, makes multiple concurrent calls (which is perfectly valid to happen). In this case I sometimes get a deadlock. Using SQL Server Profiler I can see the following is happening.
Caller A performs the select and acquires a shared lock on the user session. Caller B performs the select and acquires a shared lock on the same user session. Caller A cannot perform its update because of Caller B's shared lock. Caller B cannot perform its update because of caller A's shared lock. Deadlock.
This seems like a simple and classic deadlock scenario and there must be a simple method to resolve it. Surely almost all real world applications have this same problem.But none of the Entity Frameworks books I have mention anything about deadlocks.

I found an article that talks about this HERE. It basically sounds like you can start and stop a transaction that surrounds your EF call... The block gives the following code example so credit goes to Diego B Vega... The blog post also links to another blog with additional information.
using (var scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required, new
TransactionOptions { IsolationLevel= IsolationLevel.Snapshot }))
{
// do something with EF here
scope.Complete();
}

Will the following work for you?
using(MyContext ctx = CreateMyContext())
{
ctx.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED;");
// Get the user session for the client session
...
}

You probably have each session using a transaction maybe? in which case they will deadlock as the transactions both try to upgrade from shared lock to exclusive lock when they attempt to save. This seems to be not well documented since EF favours optimistic concurrency.
One way out of this is to provide an updatelock hint using something like this:
return context.TestEntities
.SqlQuery("SELECT TOP 1 Id, Value FROM TestEntities WITH (UPDLOCK)")
.Single();
}
see: entity framework 6 and pessimistic concurrency

"The operation is not valid for the state of the transaction" error and transaction scope

I am getting the following error when I try to call a stored procedure that contains a SELECT Statement:
The operation is not valid for the state of the transaction
Here is the structure of my calls:
public void MyAddUpdateMethod()
{
using (TransactionScope Scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
{
using(SQLServer Sql = new SQLServer(this.m_connstring))
{
//do my first add update statement
//do my call to the select statement sp
bool DoesRecordExist = this.SelectStatementCall(id)
}
}
}
public bool SelectStatementCall(System.Guid id)
{
using(SQLServer Sql = new SQLServer(this.m_connstring)) //breaks on this line
{
//create parameters
//
}
}
Is the problem with me creating another connection to the same database within the transaction?

After doing some research, it seems I cannot have two connections opened to the same database with the TransactionScope block. I needed to modify my code to look like this:
public void MyAddUpdateMethod()
{
using (TransactionScope Scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
{
using(SQLServer Sql = new SQLServer(this.m_connstring))
{
//do my first add update statement
}
//removed the method call from the first sql server using statement
bool DoesRecordExist = this.SelectStatementCall(id)
}
}
public bool SelectStatementCall(System.Guid id)
{
using(SQLServer Sql = new SQLServer(this.m_connstring))
{
//create parameters
}
}

When I encountered this exception, there was an InnerException "Transaction Timeout". Since this was during a debug session, when I halted my code for some time inside the TransactionScope, I chose to ignore this issue.
When this specific exception with a timeout appears in deployed code, I think that the following section in you .config file will help you out:
<system.transactions>
<machineSettings maxTimeout="00:05:00" />
</system.transactions>

I also come across same problem, I changed transaction timeout to 15 minutes and it works.
I hope this helps.
TransactionOptions options = new TransactionOptions();
options.IsolationLevel = System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted;
options.Timeout = new TimeSpan(0, 15, 0);
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required,options))
{
sp1();
sp2();
...
}

For any wanderer that comes across this in the future. If your application and database are on different machines and you are getting the above error especially when using TransactionScope, enable Network DTC access. Steps to do this are:
Add firewall rules to allow your machines to talk to each other.
Ensure the distributed transaction coordinator service is running
Enable network dtc access. Run dcomcnfg. Go to Component sevices > My Computer > Distributed Transaction Coordinator > Local DTC. Right click properties.
Enable network dtc access as shown.
Important: Do not edit/change the user account and password in the DTC Logon account field, leave it as is, you will end up re-installing windows if you do.

I've encountered this error when my Transaction is nested within another. Is it possible that the stored procedure declares its own transaction or that the calling function declares one?

For me, this error came up when I was trying to rollback a transaction block after encountering an exception, inside another transaction block.
All I had to do to fix it was to remove my inner transaction block.
Things can get quite messy when using nested transactions, best to avoid this and just restructure your code.

In my case, the solution was neither to increase the time of the "transactionscope" nor to increase the time of the "machineSettings" property of "system.transactions" of the machine.config file.
In this case there was something strange because this error only happened when the volume of information was very high.
So the problem was based on the fact that in the code inside the transaction there were many "foreach" that made updates for different tables (I had to solve this problem in a code developed by other personnel). If tests were performed with few records in the tables, the error was not displayed, but if the number of records was increased then the error was displayed.
In the end the solution was to change from a single transaction to several separate ones in the different "foreach" that were within the transaction.

You can't have two transactions open at the same time. What I do is that I specify transaction.Complete() before returning results that will be used by the 2nd transaction ;)

I updated some proprietary 3rd party libraries that handled part of the database process, and got this error on all calls to save. I had to change a value in the web.config transaction key section because (it turned out) the referenced transaction scope method had moved from one library to another.
There was other errors previously connected with that key, but I got rid of them by commenting the key out (I know I should have been suspicious at that point, but I assumed it was now redundant as it wasn't in the shiny new library).