I am making a simple editor on a web server that lets user change/add data to a single table stored on a MS SQL server.
I am using Entity Framework 6 to do this, and I am wondering how I should do to track the changes made to the entity model.
I would have hoped that I could load new data in the context, and have the context automatically diff against what's in the DB, and then call SaveChanges().
But from what I read online, it looks like I need to loop through all the data, and check myself what changed, so that I can then call Context.Entry(myEntry).State = Added or Context.Entry(myEntry).State = Modified
Is there no way for EF to automatically detect what's new, what's modified and what's unchanged?
I would recommend passing ViewModels or DTOs to the view, then map them back to the reloaded entity on a commit. EF will automatically only update values that change when setting values. Setting a value without changing the value will not trigger an update. (Where attaching an entity, and setting it's modified state will update all columns) Passing entities, while convenient, exposes more about your data structure than your UI may present, and can be tampered with before being sent back. Never trust anything coming back from the client. When serialized to a client, the data is no longer an entity, it is a JSON block of data. When sent back to the server, it isn't a tracked entity, it is a POCO with the entity's signature. No change tracking that EF entities can provide will apply on the client or survive serialization/deserialization.
For example:
Given a Child that has a name and birth date. We select a DTO to pass to the view. The view changes a name, we get the DTO back and copy all values, modified or otherwise back into the entity and call SaveChanges()
// For example, loading the child in the controller to pass to the view...
ChildDTO childDto = null;
using (var context = new TestDbContext())
{
childDto = context.Children
.Select(x => new ChildDto
{
ChildId = x.ChildId,
Name = x.Name,
BirthDte = x.BirthDate
}).Single(x => x.ChildId == 1);
}
// View updates just the name...
childDto.Name = "Luke";
// Example if the view passed DTO back to controller to update...
using (var context = new TestDbContext())
{
var child = context.Children.Single(x => x.ChildId == 1);
child.Name = childDto.Name;
child.BirthDate = childDto.BirthDate;
context.SaveChanges();
}
If the name changed and the birth date did not, the EF generated update statement would only update the Name. If the entity name was already "Luke", then no Update statement would be issued. You can verify this behavior with an SQL profiler to see if/when/what SQL EF sends to the database.
Automapper can help simplify this for getting the DTO back into the entity:
var mappingConfig = new MapperConfiguration(cfg =>
{
cfg.CreateMap<Child, ChildDTO>();
cfg.CreateMap<ChildDTO, Child>();
});
Then when reading, leverage ProjectTo instead of Select:
using (var context = new TestDbContext())
{
childDto = context.Children
.ProjectTo<ChildDTO>(mappingConfig)
.Single(x => x.ChildId == 1);
}
... and when updating the entity:
using (var context = new TestDbContext())
{
var child = context.Children.Single(x => x.ChildId == 1);
var mapper = mappingConfig.CreateMapper();
mapper.Map(childDto, child); // copies values from DTO to the entity instance.
context.SaveChanges();
}
It's important to validate the DTO prior to copying values across to the Entity, whether doing it manually or with Automapper. Automapper config can also be set up to only copy over values that are expected/allowed to change.
Related
I have an issue with a code first app.
When I tried to insert test item in my database I have an already exist error on child issue.
here the code of my newitem Operation :
public async Task<ActionResult<Event>> NewEvent(Event newEvent)
{
if (await _context.Events.CountAsync() > 0 && await _context.Events.FindAsync(newEvent.Id) is not null)
return BadRequest(new ConstraintException("Event Already Exist"));
if (newEvent.DoorPrize is not null && newEvent.DoorPrize.Count() > 0)
{
var doorPrizes = newEvent.DoorPrize.Where(d => _context.DoorPrizes.Contains(d)).ToList();
foreach (DoorPrize doorPrize in doorPrizes)
{
_context.Entry(doorPrize).State = EntityState.Detached;
}
foreach (DoorPrize doorPrize in newEvent.DoorPrize)
{
if (_context.FairlightUsers.Contains(doorPrize.Sponsor))
_context.Entry(doorPrize.Sponsor).State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
if (newEvent.AttendeeDetails is not null && newEvent.AttendeeDetails.Count() > 0)
{
var attendeeDetails = _context.EventAttendeeDetails.Where(d => newEvent.AttendeeDetails.Contains(d)).ToList();
foreach (EventAttendeeDetail attendeeDetail in attendeeDetails)
{
_context.Entry(attendeeDetail).State = EntityState.Detached;
}
}
if (newEvent.VenueAddress is not null)
{
if (_context.Addresses.Contains(newEvent.VenueAddress))
_context.Entry(newEvent.VenueAddress).State = EntityState.Detached;
}
if (newEvent.Sponsor is not null)
{
if (_context.FairlightUsers.Contains(newEvent.Sponsor))
_context.Entry(newEvent.Sponsor).State = EntityState.Detached;
}```
I don't know why, even if I make Sponsors (the 2) to detached, the application still try to add one.
Is someone see where is my mistake ?
My goal would be to avoid any child insertion because app need to take it from existing list but I don't success to achieve this. the application always try to create children event with setting them as detached. is there a method to avoid this ?
Working with detached entities are a nuisance. Working with detached entity graphs are a complete pain. There are several issues with your approach, namely when working with detached entities, the database state should always be treated as the point of truth for which you apply changes from your detached state only after you validate that they are still relevant. (I.e. someone else hasn't modified the entity data since your current copy had been taken.
First off,
await _context.Events.CountAsync() > 0
&& await _context.Events.FindAsync(newEvent.Id) is not null
is completely unnecessary. Why would you tell the DbContext to execute a count AND load the entity just to determine if the entity exists? If you want to know if an entity exists:
var doesExist = _context.Events.Any(x => x.Id == newEvent.Id);
if (doesExist)
return BadRequest(new ConstraintException("Event already exists"));
This executes an IF EXISTS SELECT against the database which is much faster.
Not every operation on the DbContext needs to be async. Asynchronous calls are useful for operations that will take some time to run. They come with an small extra performance cost so any operation that can be done quickly such as fetching individual entities or reasonable entity graphs can just be done synchronously.
Next, when dealing with detached entities you generally do not want to detach existing entities, and especially not references, to be overwritten by the detached entities coming in. In short you should never trust data coming into the domain to be current or safe from unexpected tampering, either by bugs or malicious consumers. For example if you have a web application where the server sends an detached entity to be rendered, then the client presents fields to be changed then the Form or Ajax POST (Javascript) serializes data into an Entity class to send back to the server, it is very easy to miss values resulting in #nulls, and malicious users can use browser debugging tools to intercept the POST, view the entity data and make changes which code like the above could unwittingly overwrite data. What gets passed in may look like an entity, but it is often not.
Instead, without changing the fact that a detached entity graph is being passed in, treat it like a DTO. The data in Event will serve as a new entity, but everything related to it you will need to decide whether those represent new entities or references to existing ones. So for instance if the relationship between an Event and a DoorPrize is one to many, where a DoorPrize entity would be created with the new event, and only ever associated with that entity, then it stands that it should be allowed to be inserted with that entity. If instead the DoorPrize is its own entity and merely associated with this Event (and others) then it needs to be re-associated with the data state.
The difference between the two: 1-to-many (Event owns DoorPrizes) in the database would have an EventId on the DoorPrize table. Many-to-many (Event is associated with DoorPrizes) There would be an EventDoorPrize linking table containing the EventId & DoorPrizeId.
In the first case, if the event is considered as New, the door prizes should all be new. However, the relationship between DoorPrize and Sponsor is most likely a many-to-many association where one sponsor will likely be associated with many different door prizes across different events.
With ownership, if a client consumer is generating new IDs for entities (not recommended, it's better to leverage things like Identity columns and let the database manage that) then you might need to check that new DoorPrize records are not in the DB. The point here wouldn't be to replace existing Door Prizes if found, but to throw a data exception since we expect to be adding these new children:
Example if DoorPrizes are "owned" by Events (1-to-many relationship) but DoorPrizeIds are set by the consumer such as using a meaningful key or Guid.New()
var doorPrizeIds = newEvent.SelectMany(e => e.DoorPrize.Id).ToList();
var doorPrizeExists = _context.DoorPrizes.Any(dp => doorPrizeIds.Contains(dp.Id));
if (doorPrizeExists)
return BadRequest(new ConstraintException("One or more door prizes already exists"))
Dealing with associations requires a bit more attention. If DoorPrizes are expected to exist and are associated with a new Event then we need to locate those. If this request needs to handle that new DoorPrize entities might be created as part of this request, then that would need to be handled as well. As a general rule it is better to handle things more atomically where creating an Event that associates with door prizes would be responsible for just that. If there was an operation to create a new Door Prize then that would be handled by a separate call.
Example if DoorPrizes are "associated" to Events (many-to-many relationship)
var doorPrizeIds = newEvent.SelectMany(e => e.DoorPrize.Id)
.ToList();
var existingDoorPrizes = await _context.DoorPrizes
.Where(dp => doorPrizeIds.Contains(dp.Id))
.ToListAsync();
var existingDoorPrizeIds = existingDoorPrizes.Select(dp => dp.Id).ToList();
var doorPrizesToExclude = newEvent.SelectMany(e => e.DoorPrize)
.Where(dp => existingDoorPrizeIds.Contains(dp.Id))
.ToList();
foreach(var doorPrize in doorPrizesToExclude)
newEvent.DoorPrizes.Remove(doorPrize);
foreach(var doorPrize in existingDoorPrizes)
newEvent.DoorPrizes.Add(doorPrize);
What this gives us is a list of matching real Door Prize entities to associate. We will want to associate these in place of the data that came in with the new event. Any door prizes that might be new would be added when the event is added. The final step here will apply to both scenarios which will be to associate the sponsors to any new DoorPrize. In the one-to-many scenario that would be every door prize, in the many-to-many that would just be the non-existing ones that might be added:
1-to-many example:
var sponsorIds = newEvent
.SelectMany(e => e.DoorPrizes.Select(dp => dp.Sponsor.Id))
.Distinct();
var sponsors = await _context.Sponsors
.Where(s => sponsorIds.Contains(s.Id))
.ToListAsync();
foreach(var doorPrize in newEvent.DoorPrizes)
{
var sponsor = sponsors.SingleOrDefault(s => s.Id == doorPrize.Sponsor.Id);
if(sponsor == null)
return BadRequest(new ConstraintException("One or more door prizes was invalid."))
doorPrize.Sponsor = sponsor;
}
Many-to-many example:
1-to-many example:
var newDoorPrizes = newEvent.DoorPrizes.Where(dp => !existingDoorPrizeIds.Contains(dp.Id)).ToList();
if(newDoorPrizes.Any())
{
var sponsorIds = newDoorPrizes.Select(dp => dp.Sponsor.Id))
.Distinct();
var sponsors = await _context.Sponsors
.Where(s => sponsorIds.Contains(s.Id))
.ToListAsync();
foreach(var doorPrize in newEvent.DoorPrizes)
{
var sponsor = sponsors.SingleOrDefault(s => s.Id == doorPrize.Sponsor.Id);
if(sponsor == null)
return BadRequest(new ConstraintException("One or more door prizes was invalid."))
doorPrize.Sponsor = sponsor;
}
}
A similar operation to deal with associations for the Sponsor, the difference just being if the DoorPrizes are associations, we only want to do the substitution for Sponsors on newly added door prizes. The door prizes we re-associated from context tracked entities will already have valid sponsors.
Later, when you perform updates, it is a similar process, except you would expect to fetch the existing entity, but also pre-fetch the associated details with eager loading:
var existingEntry = _context.Entries
.Include(e => e.DoorPrizes)
.Single(e => e.Id == entryId);
This will throw if the entry isn't found which you can catch, or call .SingleOrDefault and check for #null to return your BadRequest if you prefer doing it inline. From there it is much the same process by where you can inspect the details coming un with the existingEntry to determine if DoorPrizes need to be updated, added, or removed. Again, for adding DoorPrizes the same process to re-associate Sponsors with actual tracked instances.
The important thing when updating entity graphs (parent-child relationships or associations) is to differentiate between whether the higher level entity "owns" the relationship, or if it is an association between entities that may already exist in the database. You will want to avoid code that detaches tracked entities and then does things like setting a passed in entity state to Modified to be saved. This will lead to all manners of problems where you overwrite data you don't intend to change, or exceptions when EF/SQL get told to do something invalid.
I have a problem with saving changes to the database with entity framework. I'm using three tables; AspNetUsers, tblCountry, and tblCountry_AspNetUsers.
tblCountry_AspNetUsers consists of two columns; UserId and CountryId, which creates a one-to-many relationship between tblCountry and AspNetUsers.
Currently, what I want to do is change the country of a specific user, but entity framework doesn't let me access the tblCountry_AspNetUsers database, and instead creates an ICollection of AspNetUsers on tblCountry. I could assign the Id on the AspNetUser directly, but I don't want to start adding/removing columns from identity tables just yet since I'm using database first, and I've heard it can lead to problems.
Anyway, I can remove just fine from the ICollection and save those changes to the database, but when I try to add the same user to a different country, it doesn't save to the database properly, but I can find the user in the context object when debugging.
I've tried attaching and changing the entitystate to both added and modified, but when I try to do this, it breaks out of the method and doesn't update the database. (basically it freezes when I try to attach)
My code for editing a user looks like the following:
(Note that UserManager handles the identity usermodel, ApplicationUser,, which is not the same as AspNetUsers in this aspect)
(Also, tblCountry.AspNetUsers refers to the ICollection of users assigned to a specific country)
...
var aspuser = new AspNetUsers();
using (DbContext dc = new DbContext())
{
aspuser = dc.AspNetUsers.First(x => x.Id == userid);
var user = await UserManager.FindByIdAsync(userid);
user.Email = updatedUser.UserName;
user.UserName = updatedUser.Email;
var result = await UserManager.UpdateAsync(user);
aspuser.tblCountry.AspNetUsers.Remove(aspuser);
await dc.SaveChangesAsync();
}
using (DbContext dc = new DbContext())
{
var c = _country.GetById(newcountryid);
c.AspNetUsers.Add(aspuser);
await dc.SaveChangesAsync();
}
return Users(userid);
}
It would be extremely easy if it was a table I could access directly, but with an ICollection like this I'm confused as to what I should do to make it work, and I appreciate any input!
Cheers
This line aspuser = dc.AspNetUsers.First(x => x.Id == userid); is inside using (DbContext dc = new DbContext()) which means that object aspuser is detached from context when you leave that block. You should do:
var c = _country.GetById(newcountryid);
c.AspNetUsers.Add(aspuser);
await dc.SaveChangesAsync();
in the same using block as the above code, why did you separate it?
I want to use EF DbContext/POCO entities in a detached manner, i.e. retrieve a hierarchy of entities from my business tier, make some changes, then send the entire hierarchy back to the business tier to persist back to the database. Each BLL call uses a different instance of the DbContext. To test this I wrote some code to simulate such an environment.
First I retrieve a Customer plus related Orders and OrderLines:-
Customer customer;
using (var context = new TestContext())
{
customer = context.Customers.Include("Orders.OrderLines").SingleOrDefault(o => o.Id == 1);
}
Next I add a new Order with two OrderLines:-
var newOrder = new Order { OrderDate = DateTime.Now, OrderDescription = "Test" };
newOrder.OrderLines.Add(new OrderLine { ProductName = "foo", Order = newOrder, OrderId = newOrder.Id });
newOrder.OrderLines.Add(new OrderLine { ProductName = "bar", Order = newOrder, OrderId = newOrder.Id });
customer.Orders.Add(newOrder);
newOrder.Customer = customer;
newOrder.CustomerId = customer.Id;
Finally I persist the changes (using a new context):-
using (var context = new TestContext())
{
context.Customers.Attach(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
}
I realise this last part is incomplete, as no doubt I'll need to change the state of the new entities before calling SaveChanges(). Do I Add or Attach the customer? Which entities states will I have to change?
Before I can get to this stage, running the above code throws an Exception:
An object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager.
It seems to stem from not explicitly setting the ID of the two OrderLine entities, so both default to 0. I thought it was fine to do this as EF would handle things automatically. Am I doing something wrong?
Also, working in this "detached" manner, there seems to be an lot of work required to set up the relationships - I have to add the new order entity to the customer.Orders collection, set the new order's Customer property, and its CustomerId property. Is this the correct approach or is there a simpler way?
Would I be better off looking at self-tracking entities? I'd read somewhere that they are being deprecated, or at least being discouraged in favour of POCOs.
You basically have 2 options:
A) Optimistic.
You can proceed pretty close to the way you're proceeding now, and just attach everything as Modified and hope. The code you're looking for instead of .Attach() is:
context.Entry(customer).State = EntityState.Modified;
Definitely not intuitive. This weird looking call attaches the detached (or newly constructed by you) object, as Modified. Source: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/01/29/using-dbcontext-in-ef-feature-ctp5-part-4-add-attach-and-entity-states.aspx
If you're unsure whether an object has been added or modified you can use the last segment's example:
context.Entry(customer).State = customer.Id == 0 ?
EntityState.Added :
EntityState.Modified;
You need to take these actions on all of the objects being added/modified, so if this object is complex and has other objects that need to be updated in the DB via FK relationships, you need to set their EntityState as well.
Depending on your scenario you can make these kinds of don't-care writes cheaper by using a different Context variation:
public class MyDb : DbContext
{
. . .
public static MyDb CheapWrites()
{
var db = new MyDb();
db.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false;
db.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
return db;
}
}
using(var db = MyDb.CheapWrites())
{
db.Entry(customer).State = customer.Id == 0 ?
EntityState.Added :
EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
}
You're basically just disabling some extra calls EF makes on your behalf that you're ignoring the results of anyway.
B) Pessimistic. You can actually query the DB to verify the data hasn't changed/been added since you last picked it up, then update it if it's safe.
var existing = db.Customers.Find(customer.Id);
// Some logic here to decide whether updating is a good idea, like
// verifying selected values haven't changed, then
db.Entry(existing).CurrentValues.SetValues(customer);
I have the following piece of code
private void DoAddPropertyType()
{
var ctx = Globals.DbContext;
var propType = new PropertyType()
{
ID = Guid.NewGuid(),
Name = "NewType",
Description = "New Property Type",
ModifiedDate = DateTime.Now
};
ctx.AddToPropertyTypes(propType);
PropertyTypes.Add(propType);
}
Globals.DbContext provides a static reference to the objectcontext initiated on startup. For some reason the ctx.AddToPropertyTypes(propType); bit does not add the entity to the context. If I breakpoint after that line and browse the ctx.PropertyTypes entity set it is not there. Any ideas?
EDIT 1:
If I add a ctx.SaveChanges() after the ctx.AddToPropertyTypes(propType) and step the actual adding appears to happen only once SaveChanges execute. This however does not suit my requirements as I want to first validate objects prior to saving and wanted to iterate through the entities in the entity set. Does any one know of an alternative approach?
So that is the point of your issue. ctx.PropertyTypes is not a real collection - it is entrance to the database and your "browsing" actually executes query to the database where your new object was not yet stored. If you want to find a new object added to the context without saving it first you must search the object inside the ObjectStateManager:
var entity = ctx.ObjectStateManager
.GetObjectStateEntries(EntityState.Added)
.Where(e => !e.IsRelationship)
.Select(e => e.Entity)
.OfType<PropertyType>()
.SingleOrDefault(p => p.ID == ...);
I'm currently working on a project which is using EF Code First with POCOs. I have 5 POCOs that so far depends on the POCO "User".
The POCO "User" should refer to my already existing MemberShip table "aspnet_Users" (which I map it to in the OnModelCreating method of the DbContext).
The problem is that I want to take advantage of the "Recreate Database If Model changes" feature as Scott Gu shows at: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/07/16/code-first-development-with-entity-framework-4.aspx - What the feature basically does is to recreate the database as soon as it sees any changes in my POCOs. What I want it to do is to Recreate the database but to somehow NOT delete the whole Database so that aspnet_Users is still alive. However it seems impossible as it either makes a whole new Database or replaces the current one with..
So my question is: Am I doomed to define my database tables by hand, or can I somehow merge my POCOs into my current database and still take use of the feature without wipeing it all?
As of EF Code First in CTP5, this is not possible. Code First will drop and create your database or it does not touch it at all. I think in your case, you should manually create your full database and then try to come up with an object model that matches the DB.
That said, EF team is actively working on the feature that you are looking for: altering the database instead of recreating it:
Code First Database Evolution (aka Migrations)
I was just able to do this in EF 4.1 with the following considerations:
CodeFirst
DropCreateDatabaseAlways
keeping the same connection string and database name
The database is still deleted and recreated - it has to be to for the schema to reflect your model changes -- but your data remains intact.
Here's how: you read your database into your in-memory POCO objects, and then after the POCO objects have successfully made it into memory, you then let EF drop and recreate the database. Here is an example
public class NorthwindDbContextInitializer : DropCreateDatabaseAlways<NorthindDbContext> {
/// <summary>
/// Connection from which to ead the data from, to insert into the new database.
/// Not the same connection instance as the DbContext, but may have the same connection string.
/// </summary>
DbConnection connection;
Dictionary<Tuple<PropertyInfo,Type>, System.Collections.IEnumerable> map;
public NorthwindDbContextInitializer(DbConnection connection, Dictionary<Tuple<PropertyInfo, Type>, System.Collections.IEnumerable> map = null) {
this.connection = connection;
this.map = map ?? ReadDataIntoMemory();
}
//read data into memory BEFORE database is dropped
Dictionary<Tuple<PropertyInfo, Type>, System.Collections.IEnumerable> ReadDataIntoMemory() {
Dictionary<Tuple<PropertyInfo,Type>, System.Collections.IEnumerable> map = new Dictionary<Tuple<PropertyInfo,Type>,System.Collections.IEnumerable>();
switch (connection.State) {
case System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed:
connection.Open();
break;
}
using (this.connection) {
var metaquery = from p in typeof(NorthindDbContext).GetProperties().Where(p => p.PropertyType.IsGenericType)
let elementType = p.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments()[0]
let dbsetType = typeof(DbSet<>).MakeGenericType(elementType)
where dbsetType.IsAssignableFrom(p.PropertyType)
select new Tuple<PropertyInfo, Type>(p, elementType);
foreach (var tuple in metaquery) {
map.Add(tuple, ExecuteReader(tuple));
}
this.connection.Close();
Database.Delete(this.connection);//call explicitly or else if you let the framework do this implicitly, it will complain the connection is in use.
}
return map;
}
protected override void Seed(NorthindDbContext context) {
foreach (var keyvalue in this.map) {
foreach (var obj in (System.Collections.IEnumerable)keyvalue.Value) {
PropertyInfo p = keyvalue.Key.Item1;
dynamic dbset = p.GetValue(context, null);
dbset.Add(((dynamic)obj));
}
}
context.SaveChanges();
base.Seed(context);
}
System.Collections.IEnumerable ExecuteReader(Tuple<PropertyInfo, Type> tuple) {
DbCommand cmd = this.connection.CreateCommand();
cmd.CommandText = string.Format("select * from [dbo].[{0}]", tuple.Item2.Name);
DbDataReader reader = cmd.ExecuteReader();
using (reader) {
ConstructorInfo ctor = typeof(Test.ObjectReader<>).MakeGenericType(tuple.Item2)
.GetConstructors()[0];
ParameterExpression p = Expression.Parameter(typeof(DbDataReader));
LambdaExpression newlambda = Expression.Lambda(Expression.New(ctor, p), p);
System.Collections.IEnumerable objreader = (System.Collections.IEnumerable)newlambda.Compile().DynamicInvoke(reader);
MethodCallExpression toArray = Expression.Call(typeof(Enumerable),
"ToArray",
new Type[] { tuple.Item2 },
Expression.Constant(objreader));
LambdaExpression lambda = Expression.Lambda(toArray, Expression.Parameter(typeof(IEnumerable<>).MakeGenericType(tuple.Item2)));
var array = (System.Collections.IEnumerable)lambda.Compile().DynamicInvoke(new object[] { objreader });
return array;
}
}
}
This example relies on a ObjectReader class which you can find here if you need it.
I wouldn't bother with the blog articles, read the documentation.
Finally, I would still suggest you always back up your database before running the initialization. (e.g. if the Seed method throws an exception, all your data is in memory, so you risk your data being lost once the program terminates.) A model change isn't exactly an afterthought action anyway, so be sure to back your data up.
One thing you might consider is to use a 'disconnected' foreign key. You can leave the ASPNETDB alone and just reference the user in your DB using the User key (guid). You can access the logged in user as follows:
MembershipUser currentUser = Membership.GetUser(User.Identity.Name, true /* userIsOnline */);
And then use the User's key as a FK in your DB:
Guid UserId = (Guid) currentUser.ProviderUserKey ;
This approach decouples your DB with the ASPNETDB and associated provider architecturally. However, operationally, the data will of course be loosely connected since the IDs will be in each DB. Note also there will be no referential constraints, whcih may or may not be an issue for you.