I have just implemented the DuendeIdentity Server and by DBContext looks like this.
public class DataContext : ApiAuthorizationDbContext<ApplicationUser>
{
public DataContext(
DbContextOptions options,
IOptions<OperationalStoreOptions> operationalStoreOptions) : base(options, operationalStoreOptions)
{
}
...
I now wish to implement some basic Database Auditing which I have successfully done in the past using this https://codewithmukesh.com/blog/audit-trail-implementation-in-aspnet-core/ however it is implemented in this way
public abstract class AuditableIdentityContext : IdentityDbContext
{
public AuditableIdentityContext(DbContextOptions options) : base(options)
{
}
With the DataContext then inheriting from it like
public partial class DataContext : AuditContext
{
public DataContext(DbContextOptions<DataContext> options)
: base(options)
{
}
I am trying to understand how I may use the two together. Any help would be appreciated.
C# doesn't have multiple inheritance.
Consider using your ApiAuthorizationDbContext separately from your application-specific DbContext. You can still use a DbSet<ApplicationUser> to reference your users from your application entities.
Related
There's one thing I could't handle in implementing Bounded context with Entity Framework :
Having the entities (even their properties) distributed in multiple contexts , I feel the need to centralize the whole model in a specific area, that would be responsible for managing migrations.
Am I on the right track ?
Am I missing an important piece of the implementation puzzle?
You are right, I used multiple DbContext In my project too, I defined each mudule's DbContext In following format:
public class Module1Context : DbContext
{
public Moduled1Context()
: base("MyDatabase") //<=== I passed this ConnectionString parameter
// to all modules
{
}
...
}
public class Moduled2Context : DbContext
{
public Moduled2Context()
: base("MyDatabase")
{
}
...
}
And then defined a main DbContext that contains all DbSets from all module's DbContexts and use it for managing Migrations:
public class AllModulesContext : DbContext
{
public AllModulesContext()
: base("MyDatabase")
{
}
//dbSets from all modules
...
}
I wrote a MVC 4 app. I have some questions:
public class DatabaseContext<TEntity>: DbContext where TEntity: class
{
...
public DbSet<TEntity> entity = {get; set;}
...
}
I want to create a generic database context like this DatabaseContext and use it for all my Entities defined in database tables.
Please, write an example.
I don't now how to initialize generic context in global.asax once and use it every time, in whichever part of the project necessary.
Please, write some examples.
It seems to me to what you're implementing is the Repository Pattern:
public interface IRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
IEnumerable<TEntity> GetAll();
TEntity GetById(Guid id);
}
Prevent letting your repository inherit from DbContext, since DbContext is an implementation of the Unit of Work pattern and a unit of work is not a repository (but rather contains or manages multiple repositories).
What you can do is to let your repository use the DbContext internally:
public class Repository<TEntity> : IRepository<TEntity>
{
private readonly DbContext context;
public Repository(DbContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public IEnumerable<TEntity> GetAll()
{
return this.context.Set<TEntity>();
}
public TEntity GetById(Guid id)
{
var entity = this.context.Set<Entity>().Find(id);
if (entity == null) throw new KeyNotFoundException(
typeof(TEntity).Name + " with id " + id + " not found);
return entity;
}
}
UPDATE
Since I'm a Dependency Injection enthusiast, I think that Dependency Injection is the solution to your problem. And since I'm a developer for the Simple Injector project, I'll show you how to do this using Simple Injector:
Step 1: Install the Simple Injector MVC Integration Quick Start NuGet package into your MVC project (I assume you know how to install NuGet packages).
Step 2: Compile your project. You'll get a compiler error in the SimpleInjectorInitializer class that the package just added. This is the line where you will have to make your registrations. You can just remove this #error line.
Step 3: Add the SimpleInjector.Extensions namespace to the top of the SimpleInjectorInitializer file:
using SimpleInjector.Extensions;
Step 4: Make the following registrations in the InitializeContainer method:
container.RegisterOpenGeneric(typeof(IRepository<>), typeof(Repository<>));
container.RegisterPerWebRequest<DbContext>(
() => new DbContext("Your connection string here"));
Step 5: Add the IRepository<T> dependencies to your contollers:
public class CustomerController : Controller
{
private readonly IRepository<Customer> customerRepository;
public CustomerController(IRepository<Customer> customerRepository)
{
this.customerRepository = customerRepository;
}
// controller methods here.
}
Now your repositories will be automatically be injected into your controllers.
Is there a reason you want to make a DatabaseContext with a generic type parameter? You won't be to instantiate it in a single place because each different DatabaseContext is a separate .NET Type.
Unless you're sticking rigidly to a particular pattern, I personally don't see any practical advantage of this approach over a single DatabaseContext with many sets:
public class DatabaseContext: DbContext
{
public DbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; set; }
public DbSet<OtherEntity> OtherEntities { get; set; }
}
...
myDatabaseContext.SomeEntities.GetAll();
myDatabaseContext.OtherEntities.GetAll();
// OR:
myDatabaseContext.Set<SomeEntity>().GetAll();
myDatabaseContext.Set<OtherEntity>().GetAll();
I have an application that we have some modules. We have for example FinancialModule and EmployeeModule.
I have an Core project that I created an abstract class called DefaultDbContext that inherits from DbContext and I have an abstract method called ModelCreating that all ConcreteClass (EFFinacialContext and EFEmployeeContext) should implement it to add mapping class.
My problem is that, I have an application with these modules and receiving this message "The entity type EntityName is not part of the model for the current context."
I have each module in running in another application and everything is okay, so,something is wrong when running together.
Who had the same problem using applications with multiples db context?
Thanks
Heres your problem
public class Context1 : DbContext
{
public IDbSet<Entity1> E1{get;set;}
}
public class Context2 : DbContext
{
public IDbSet<Entity2> E2{get;set;}
}
public class Entity1
{
//some stuff
}
public class Entity2
{
//some stuff
public Entity1 E1 {get;set;} //you arent allowed this as its not in your current dbcontext
}
I have added a database repository layer to my MVC application which does the CRUD. Sometimes my controllers need to call multiple db repositories and I do this by calling the db respitories I need. This in turn creates multiple db context objects. One for each repository. Should there be multiple db context objects or should I pass in a single db context to the repository object?
In your controller you should use one dbContext. Because When you try to update your model in db, you may get error. Because of different dbContext.
Check HERE
There should be only one, I highly recommend using Unit of Work pattern:
Here's a quick and simple example:
public interface IUoW : IDisposable
{
MyDbContext DbContext { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}
public class UoW : IUoW
{
public MyDbContext DbContext { get; set; }
public UoW()
{
DbContext = new MyDbContext();
}
public void SaveChanges()
{
DbContext.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
DbContext.Dispose();
}
}
You need to instantiate UoW once for each request and pass it to your repository:
public class MyRepository
{
private MyDbContext _context;
public MyRepository(IUoW uow)
{
_context = uow.MyDbContext;
}
// your crud methods
}
Of course it's just a very simple example of it and I've seen people implement this pattern in many different ways.
Why there is no IDbContext interface in the Entity Framework? Wouldn't it be easier to test things if there was an existing interface with methods like SaveChanges() etc. from which you could derive your custom database context interface?
public interface ICustomDbContext : IDbContext
{
// add entity set properties to existing set of methods in IDbContext
IDbSet<SomeEntity> SomeEntities { get; }
}
I see this IDbContext:
See this link And then you make a new partial class for your Entities Context With That interface.
public partial class YourModelEntities : DbContext, IDbContext
EDITED:
I edited this post, This Works for me.
My Context
namespace dao
{
public interface ContextI : IDisposable
{
DbSet<TEntity> Set<TEntity>() where TEntity : class;
DbSet Set(Type entityType);
int SaveChanges();
IEnumerable<DbEntityValidationResult> GetValidationErrors();
DbEntityEntry<TEntity> Entry<TEntity>(TEntity entity) where TEntity:class;
DbEntityEntry Entry(object entity);
string ConnectionString { get; set; }
bool AutoDetectChangedEnabled { get; set; }
void ExecuteSqlCommand(string p, params object[] o);
void ExecuteSqlCommand(string p);
}
}
YourModelEntities is your auto-generated partial class, and your need to create a new partial class with the same name, then add your new context interface, for this example is ContextI
NOTE: The interface hasn't implement all methods, because the methods are implemented in your auto-generate code.
namespace dao
{
public partial class YourModelEntities :DbContext, ContextI
{
public string ConnectionString
{
get
{
return this.Database.Connection.ConnectionString;
}
set
{
this.Database.Connection.ConnectionString = value;
}
}
bool AutoDetectChangedEnabled
{
get
{
return true;
}
set
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public void ExecuteSqlCommand(string p,params object[] os)
{
this.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(p, os);
}
public void ExecuteSqlCommand(string p)
{
this.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(p);
}
bool ContextI.AutoDetectChangedEnabled
{
get
{
return this.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled;
}
set
{
this.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = value;
}
}
}
}
I was thinking also about that, I assume you are going to use it for mocking DbContext. I find no reason for that, except that you will need to implement your own DbSet manually in your anyway for your mocked class (so will need to rewrite your own interface anyway).
Just create a mock DbContext extending your production DbContext overriding the methods that complicate testing. That way, any changes to the production DbContext are automatically reflected in the tests, save for the overridden methods. For any other classes that deal with persistence and take the DbContext just extend them as well passing in the extended mock DbContext.
namespace Test.Mocks
{
public sealed class MockDatabaseContext : MainProject.Persistence.Database.DatabaseContext
{
public MockDatabaseContext(ConfigurationWrapper config) : base(config)
{
}
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
{
var dbPath = "test.db";
optionsBuilder.UseSqlite($"Filename={dbPath}");
}
}
}
namespace Test.Mocks
{
public class MockInventoryFacade : InventoryFacade
{
public MockInventoryFacade(MockDatabaseContext databaseContext) : base(databaseContext)
{
}
}
}
There is no IDbContext because it would be useless, the only implementation of it would be the DbContext.
EF team is also going this way with IDbSet if you look at this design meeting note
For me, the real problem with EF when it comes to unit testing is the DbConnection in the DbContext, fortunately there is Effort a nice project on codeplex that starts to fill this.
Effort is a powerful tool that enables a convenient way to create automated tests for Entity Framework based applications.
It is basically an ADO.NET provider that executes all the data operations on a lightweight in-process main memory database instead of a traditional external database. It provides some intuitive helper methods too that make really easy to use this provider with existing ObjectContext or DbContext classes. A simple addition to existing code might be enough to create data driven tests that can run without the presence of the external database.
With this, you can leave your DbContext and DbSet as is and do your unit tests easily.
The only drawback with this is the difference between Linq providers where some unit tests may pass with effort and not with the real backend.
UPDATE with EF7
I still maintain that IDbContext would be useless and the problem comes from the DbConnection.
EF7 will not have an IDbContext either, in order to do unit testing they are now giving an in memory provider.
You can see Rowan Miller doing a demo here: Modern Data Applications with Entity Framework 7