EF : Returning linked tables - entity-framework

Is this the correct way I can get linked tables using where or is there another way to return the data.
GetMethod
public IEnumerable<Model.MeetingPollingQuestion> GetMeetingPollingQuestion(int MeetingPollingId)
{
using (var db = new NccnEcommerceEntities())
{
using (DbContextTransaction dbTran = db.Database.BeginTransaction())
{
var ListOfMeetingPollingQuestions = (from mpq in db.MeetingPollingQuestions
where (mpq.MeetingPollingId == MeetingPollingId)
select new Model.MeetingPollingQuestion
{
MeetingPollingId = mpq.MeetingPollingId.Value,
MeetingPollingQuestionType = mpq.MeetingPollingQuestionType,
MeetingPollingParts = (from mp in db.MeetingPollingParts
where mp.MeetingPollingPartsId == mpq.MeetingPollingId
select new Model.MeetingPollingParts
{
Type= mp.Type
}).ToList(),
}).ToList();
return ListOfMeetingPollingQuestions;
}
}
}
EF Model
namespace Repository.EFModel
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public partial class MeetingPolling
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public MeetingPolling()
{
this.MeetingPollingQuestions = new HashSet<MeetingPollingQuestion>();
}
public int MeetingPollingId { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> MeetingId { get; set; }
public Nullable<System.DateTime> StartDate { get; set; }
public Nullable<System.DateTime> EndDate { get; set; }
public string PollingTitle { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
public virtual ICollection<MeetingPollingQuestion> MeetingPollingQuestions { get; set; }
}
}
namespace Repository.EFModel
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public partial class MeetingPollingQuestion
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public MeetingPollingQuestion()
{
this.MeetingPollingParts = new HashSet<MeetingPollingPart>();
}
public int MeetingPollingQuestionId { get; set; }
public string MeetingPollingQuestionType { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> MeetingPollingId { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> SequenceOrder { get; set; }
public virtual MeetingPolling MeetingPolling { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
public virtual ICollection<MeetingPollingPart> MeetingPollingParts { get; set; }
}
}
namespace Repository.EFModel
{
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
public partial class MeetingPollingPart
{
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
public MeetingPollingPart()
{
this.MeetingPollingPartsValues = new HashSet<MeetingPollingPartsValue>();
}
public int MeetingPollingPartsId { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
public Nullable<int> MeetingPollingQuestionId { get; set; }
[System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
public virtual ICollection<MeetingPollingPartsValue> MeetingPollingPartsValues { get; set; }
public virtual MeetingPollingQuestion MeetingPollingQuestion { get; set; }
}
}

Your entities have navigation properties for the related entities, so if you want to return entities and their relatives, just eager load the related entities using Include.
public IEnumerable<Model.MeetingPollingQuestion> GetMeetingPollingQuestion(int MeetingPollingId)
{
using (var db = new NccnEcommerceEntities())
{
var questions = db.MeetingPollingQuestions
.AsNoTracking()
.Include(mpq => mpq.MeetingPollingType)
.Include(mpq => mpq.MeetingPollingParts)
.Where(mpq => mpq.MeetingPollingId == MeetingPollingId)
.ToList();
return questions;
}
}
... and that's it. The important details here is the use of Include to eager load related data, and the use of AsNoTracking to ensure that the loaded entities are not tracked by the DbContext. These will be detached entities, copies of the data but otherwise not tracking changes or an association with a DbContext. These are suitable for read-only access to the data they contain.
Whenever returning "entities" outside of the scope of a DbContext you should ensure that they are non-tracked or detached. This is to avoid errors that can come up with potential lazy load scenarios complaining about that an associated DbContext has been disposed, or errors about references being tracked by another DbContext if you try associating these entities to a new DbContext. Your code performing a Select with a new class instance does the same thing, just more code.
Personally I do not recommend working with detached entities such as ever returning entities outside of the scope of the DbContext that they were read from. Especially if you decide you only need a subset of data that the entity ultimately can provide. Entities reflect the data state, and should always be considered as Complete, or Complete-able. (i.e. Lazy loading enabled) If the code base has some code that works with tracked entities within the scope of a DbContext, vs. detached entities, vs. copies of entity classes that might be partially filled or deserialized, it makes for buggy, unreliable, and un-reusable code. Take a utility method that accepts a MeetingPollingQuestion as a parameter. As far as that method is concerned it should always get a complete MeetingPollingQuestion. The behaviour of this method could change depending on whether it was given a tracked vs. detached, vs. partially filled in copy of a MeetingPollingQuestion class. Methods like this would need to inspect the entity being passed in, and how reliable can that logic be for determining why a related entity/collection might be missing or #null?
If you need to pass entity data outside the scope of the DbContext where you cannot count on that data being complete or related data being lazy loaded as a last resort, then I recommend using POCO DTOs or ViewModels for those detached or partial representations of the data state. With a separate POCO (Populated by Select or Automapper) there is no confusion between that representation and a tracked Entity.

Related

Load a navigation property value using entity framework core without going through DB context

TL;DR: what's the most concise method to load a single navigation property on an entity?
Suppose I already have an instance entity Foo with a child Child. Instance of Foo I have has ChildId set but Child was not loaded, i.e. foo.ChildId == 1234 but foo.Child == null.
I want to get Child if it is missing. I know I can do:
if (foo.Child is null) {
foo.Child = _dbContext.Foos.Include(f => f.Child).Single(f => f.Id == foo.Id).Child;
}
but I am looking for a lazy way (pun!) to load it on-demand (I don't want to load all properties on-demand, however, just the one I want to load explicitly), something like:
var child = _dbContext.EnsureLoaded(da, e => e.Child);
Is there a way to do this?
Probably you are looking for Explicit Loading of Related Data
_dbContext.Entry(foo).Reference(f => f.Child).Load();
Lazy Loading is already available. There are two options:
using proxy objects generated by EF Core to automagically load related entities or
use the ILazyLoader service with POCOs to load related entities when requested
Proxies
To use proxies, the DbContext has to be configured first :
.AddDbContext<BloggingContext>(
b => b.UseLazyLoadingProxies()
.UseSqlServer(myConnectionString));
After that, any properties that need to be lazy loaded have to be made virtual :
public class Blog
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Post> Posts { get; set; }
}
public class Post
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string Content { get; set; }
public virtual Blog Blog { get; set; }
}
At runtime EF will return proxy objects that inherit from the entity classes and overload the lazy properties to load the related object when first requested.
ILazyLoader service
Another option, that doesn't require inheritance, is to use POCOs and the ILazyLoader service to load the entities when needed :
public class Blog
{
private ICollection<Post> _posts;
public Blog()
{
}
private Blog(ILazyLoader lazyLoader)
{
LazyLoader = lazyLoader;
}
private ILazyLoader LazyLoader { get; set; }
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<Post> Posts
{
get => LazyLoader.Load(this, ref _posts);
set => _posts = value;
}
}
This adds a dependency on the ILazyLoader interface itself, which in turn adds a dependency to EF Core in domain or business models.
This can be avoided by injecting the loader as a lambda, along with some convention magic :
public class Blog
{
private ICollection<Post> _posts;
public Blog()
{
}
private Blog(Action<object, string> lazyLoader)
{
LazyLoader = lazyLoader;
}
private Action<object, string> LazyLoader { get; set; }
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<Post> Posts
{
get => LazyLoader.Load(this, ref _posts);
set => _posts = value;
}
}
This is used in combination with an extension method that actually calls the loader using the property's name and sets its backing field :
public static class PocoLoadingExtensions
{
public static TRelated Load<TRelated>(
this Action<object, string> loader,
object entity,
ref TRelated navigationField,
[CallerMemberName] string navigationName = null)
where TRelated : class
{
loader?.Invoke(entity, navigationName);
return navigationField;
}
}
As the docs warn:
The constructor parameter for the lazy-loading delegate must be called "lazyLoader". Configuration to use a different name than this is planned for a future release.

entity framework DDD

I work on a EF Core project for WPF app.
We decide to split the DbContext in 2 smaller Dbcontexts: (the project contains a single Database)
public class FirstDbContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Blog> Blogs { get; set; }
public DbSet<Post> Posts { get; set; }
public DBSet<Parameters>{ get; set; }
}
public class SecondDbContext: DbContext
{
public DBSet<User>{ get; set; }
public DBSet<Books> { get; set; }
public DBSet<Parameters>{ get; set; }
}
and we keep a "super" DbContext (which contains all the DbSets from the DB) to maintain and migrate the DB
public class SuperDbContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Blog> Blogs { get; set; }
public DbSet<Post> Posts { get; set; }
public DBSet<User>{ get; set; }
public DBSet<Books> { get; set; }
public DBSet<Parameters>{ get; set; }
}....
The first step to refactor code is to replace the lines which references the "SuperDbContext..." with the correct call "SecondDbContext.Books..."or "FirstDbContext.Post"... OK
Question:
In the Client app, the choice of DbContext is depending about a user's choice when app is launching: if user choose option1 => FirstDbContext, and if option2 => SecondDbContext.
How can we write the code to switch on the current DbContext to manage the "common DbSet" (Parameters) : before refactoring we have for example:
SuperDbContext.Parameters.FirstOrDefault()...
and now? do we have to write something like this:
if(option1)
{
FirstDbContext.Parameters.First()
}else
{
SecondDbContext.Parameters.First()
}
And what is the impact in the repositories? cause if we maintain this approach we have to duplicate code in the 2 Repositories?
No no... Forget about the approach you mentioned, you'll end up writing twice the code you need. Why don't you just use db context type :
At the beginning of your function, a single if else :
DbContext context;
if(option1)
{
context = new firstContextEntities();
}
else
{
context = new secondContextEntities();
}
And as both of your contexts are almost exactly the same, you will use your context by casting it to the greater one (the one that has the most access) :
var FirstLine = ((secondContextEntities)context).Parameters.First();

IEnumerable in lazy-loading EF

I have two models in EF Code First:
public class Book
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public virtual IEnumerable<Page> Pages { get; set; }
}
public class Page
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int BookId { get; set; }
public Book Book { get; set; }
}
When loads a Book model from DB, Pages property is Null. But when replace IEnumerable => ICollection, lazy loading works and Pages fills from DB. How use IEnumerable and lazy loading together?
IEnumerable is immutable collection which you cannot modify (add or remove). EF does not support this type because internally EF need to modify collection in model.
Use ICollection instead, ICollection inherits from IEnumerable so it not only still get deferred execution (lazy loading) purpose but also has more methods to modify collection.

Entity Framework: Developing a Model that does not do Updates and Deletes

I am trying to figure out a way to develop a database model using Entity Framework that does not do updates or deletes. The business requirements want the complete history of all changes that are made to each record in the system, for analysis reasons. So instead I want to always modify by inserting a new record to the database.
Is there a clean way to get Entity Framework to do that? Or am I going to be jumping through a lot hoops to get this sort of behavior. The basic model is pretty simple, some stuff, like constructors, removed since they don't add much to the discussion:
public class Container
{
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public ICollection<Container> RelatedContainers { get; private set; }
public ICollection<Item> Items { get; private set; }
}
public class Item
{
public Guid Id { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public string Value { get; private set; }
}
Basically you need to override SaveChanges() method in DbContext. In your method get all the objects that have the EntityState Deleted or Modified and set the status UnChanged.
public class YourDbContext:DbContext{
public override int SaveChanges(){
foreach ( var ent in this.ChangeTracker
.Entries()
.Where(p =>p.State == System.Data.EntityState.Deleted
p.State == System.Data.EntityState.Modified))
{
ent.State =System.Data.EntityState.Unchanged;
}
}
}

Problems using TPT (Table Per Type) in EF 4.2 and deletion of parent objects

From what I understand on several posts the TPT architecure, with EF, does not create the necessary ON DELETE CASCADE when using a shared primary key.... It was also said that the EF context will handle the proper order of deletion of the sub-classed tables (however I do get an error that it breaks the constraint and that I can fix it with adding the ON DELETE CASCADE on the sub-class table)...
more background info...
I have a Section class, which has a number, title, and a list of pages. The page is designed using a super class which holds basic page properties. I have about 10+ sub-classes of the page class. The Section class holds an ICollection of these pages. The DB is created properly with the exception of no ON DELETE CASCADE on the sub-classed tables.
My code will create the entities and adds to the DB fine. However, if I try to delete a section (or all sections) it fails todelete due to the FK constraint on my sub-class page table...
public abstract BaseContent
{
... common properties which are Ignored in the DB ...
}
public class Course : BaseContent
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public string Name {get;set;}
public string Descripiton {get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<Chapter> Chapters{get;set;}
...
}
public class Chapter : BaseContent
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public int Number {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
public virtual Course MyCourse{get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<Section> Sections{get;set;}
...
}
public class Section : BaseContent
{
public int Id {get;set;}
public int Number {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
public virtual Chapter MyChapter {get;set;}
public virtual ICollection<BasePage> Pages {get;set;}
...
}
public abstract class BasePage : BaseContent, IComparable
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public string PageImageRef { get; set; }
public ePageImageLocation ImageLocationOnPage { get; set; }
public int PageNumber { get; set; }
public virtual Section MySection { get; set; }
...
}
public class ChapterPage : BasePage
{
public virtual int ChapterNumber { get; set; }
public virtual string ChapterTitle { get; set; }
public virtual string AudioRef { get; set; }
}
public class SectionPage : BasePage
{
public virtual int SectionNumber { get; set; }
public virtual string SectionTitle { get; set; }
public virtual string SectionIntroduction { get; set; }
}
... plus about 8 other BasePage sub-classes...
public class MyContext: DbContext
{
...
public DbSet<Course> Courses { get; set; }
public DbSet<Chapter> Chapters { get; set; }
public DbSet<Section> Sections { get; set; }
public DbSet<BasePage> Pages { get; set; }
...
}
.. Fluent API ... (note Schema is defined to "" for SqlServer, for Oracle its the schema name)
private EntityTypeConfiguration<T> configureTablePerType<T>(string tableName) where T : BaseContent
{
var config = new EntityTypeConfiguration<T>();
config.ToTable(tableName, Schema);
// This adds the appropriate Ignore calls on config for the base class BaseContent
DataAccessUtilityClass.IgnoreAllBaseContentProperties<T>(config);
return config;
}
public virtual EntityTypeConfiguration<BasePage> ConfigurePageContent()
{
var config = configureTablePerType<BasePage>("PageContent");
config.HasKey(pg => pg.Id);
config.HasRequired(pg => pg.Title);
config.HasOptional(pg => pg.PageImageRef);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.ImageLocationOnPage);
return config;
}
public virtual EntityTypeConfiguration<ChapterPage> ConfigureChapterPage()
{
var config = configureTablePerType<ChapterPage>("ChapterPage");
config.HasOptional(pg => pg.AudioRef);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.ChapterNumber);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.ChapterTitle);
return config;
}
public virtual EntityTypeConfiguration<SectionPage> ConfigureSectionPage()
{
var config = configureTablePerType<SectionPage>("SectionPage");
config.HasOptional(pg => pg.AudioRef);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.SectionNumber);
config.Ignore(pg => pg.SectionTitle);
return config;
}
... other code to model other tables...
So the app is able to populate content and the relationships are properly set up. However, when I try to delete the course, I get the error that the delete failed due to the constraint on the ChapterPage to PageContent table..
Here is the code which deletes the Course (actually I delete all courses)...
using (MyContext ctx = new MyContext())
{
ctx.Courses.ToList().ForEach(crs => ctx.Courses.Remove(crs));
AttachLookupEntities(ctx);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
If I add the 'ON DELETE CASCADE' in the ChapterPage and SectionPage table for its shared primary with PageContent, the delete goes through.
In summary,
The only solution that I have seen is to manually alter the constraints to add the ON DELETE CASCADE for all of my sub-class page tables. I can implement the change, as I have code which generates the DB script for the EF tables I need (a small subset of our whole DB) since we will not use EF to create or instantiate the DB (since it does not properly support migrations as yet...).
I sincerely hope that I have miscoded something, or forgot some setting in the model builder logic. Because if not, the EF designers have defined an architecure (TPT design approach) which cannot be used in any real world situation without a hack workaround. It's a half finished solution. Do not get me wrong, I like the work that has been done, and like most MSFT solutions its works for 70% of most basic application usages. It just is not ready for more complex situations.
I was trying to keep the DB design all within the EF fluent API and self-contained. It's about 98% there for me, just would be nice if they finished the job, maybe in the next release. At least it saves me all the CRUD operations.
Ciao!
Jim Shaw
I have reproduced the problem with a little bit simpler example:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Data.Entity;
namespace EFTPT
{
public class Parent
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<BasePage> Pages { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BasePage
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public Parent Parent { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedPage : BasePage
{
public string DerivedName { get; set; }
}
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Parent> Parents { get; set; }
public DbSet<BasePage> BasePages { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Parent>()
.HasMany(p => p.Pages)
.WithRequired(p => p.Parent); // creates casc. delete in DB
modelBuilder.Entity<BasePage>()
.ToTable("BasePages");
modelBuilder.Entity<DerivedPage>()
.ToTable("DerivedPages");
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var ctx = new MyContext())
{
var parent = new Parent { Pages = new List<BasePage>() };
var derivedPage = new DerivedPage();
parent.Pages.Add(derivedPage);
ctx.Parents.Add(parent);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
using (var ctx = new MyContext())
{
var parent = ctx.Parents.FirstOrDefault();
ctx.Parents.Remove(parent);
ctx.SaveChanges(); // exception here
}
}
}
}
This gives the same exception that you had too. Only solutions seem to be:
Either setup cascading delete for the TPT constraint in the DB manually, as you already tested (or put an appropriate SQL command into the Seed method).
Or load the entites which are involved in the TPT inheritance into memory. In my example code:
var parent = ctx.Parents.Include(p => p.Pages).FirstOrDefault();
When the entities are loaded into the context, EF creates actually two DELETE statements - one for the base table and one for the derived table. In your case, this is a terrible solution because you had to load a much more complex object graph before you can get the TPT entities.
Even more problematic is if Parent has an ICollection<DerivedPage> (and the inverse Parent property is in DerivedPage then):
public class Parent
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<DerivedPage> Pages { get; set; }
}
public abstract class BasePage
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class DerivedPage : BasePage
{
public string DerivedName { get; set; }
public Parent Parent { get; set; }
}
The example code wouldn't throw an exception but instead delete the row from the derived table but not from the base table, leaving a phantom row which cannot represent an entity anymore because BasePage is abstract. This problem is not solvable by a cascading delete but you were actually forced to load the collection into the context before you can delete the parent to avoid such a nonsense in the database.
A similar question and analysis was here: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/adodotnetentityframework/thread/3c27d761-4d0a-4704-85f3-8566fa37d14e/