I am using Razorpages in ASP.NET Core
I have a simple detailsModel that brings in the different DbContext from Entity Framework (EF) using the constructor parameters.
this means that my DbContexts are available when performing different actions using the OnGetVerb and OnPostVerb.
I have created a helper class that I want to use to execute the actions as I need to call this code from other places as well, but when I call the helper class the DbContext is not available in the helper class.
await new Helpers.ApproveOrder().Approve(id);
This is my code
public class DetailsModel : PageModel {
public Context1 _context1;
public Context2 _context2;
public Context3 _context3;
public IMemoryCache _cache;
public DetailsModel(Context1 context1, Context2 context2, Context3 context3, IMemoryCache memoryCache) {
_context1 = context1;
_context2 = context2;
_context3 = context3;
_cache = memoryCache;
}
public async Task<IActionResult> OnGetApproveAsync(int id) {
await new Helpers.ApproveOrder().Approve(id);
return Redirect("~/");
}
}
how can I fix this so that my dbContexts are also available in my helper class
Related
I want to develop a structure that will support generic DbContexts in the .Net Core Web API project and can be used in the repository pattern. Mysql and PostreSql databases are sufficient for now. Can you help with this?
Create a new .Net Core Web API project.
Add a new folder in the project called DataAccess and create a new class called BaseDbContext that inherits from DbContext. This class will contain the common properties and methods for all your DbContexts.
public class BaseDbContext : DbContext
{
public BaseDbContext(DbContextOptions options) : base(options) { }
//...
}
Create a new class called MySqlDbContext that inherits from BaseDbContext. This class will contain the properties and methods specific to the MySQL database.
public class MySqlDbContext : BaseDbContext
{
public MySqlDbContext(DbContextOptions<MySqlDbContext> options) : base(options) { }
//...
}
Create a new class called PostgreSqlDbContext that inherits from BaseDbContext. This class will contain the properties and methods specific to the PostgreSQL database.
public class PostgreSqlDbContext : BaseDbContext
{
public PostgreSqlDbContext(DbContextOptions<PostgreSqlDbContext> options) :
base(options) { }
//...
}
Create a new folder in the project called Repositories and create a new class called BaseRepository that will contain the common methods for all your repositories.
public class BaseRepository<T> where T : class
{
protected readonly DbContext _context;
public BaseRepository(DbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
//...
}
Create new classes for each repository that inherits from BaseRepository and pass the appropriate DbContext to the base constructor.
public class MySqlRepository : BaseRepository<MySqlDbContext>
{
public MySqlRepository(MySqlDbContext context) : base(context) { }
//...
}
and
public class PostgreSqlRepository : BaseRepository<PostgreSqlDbContext>
{
public PostgreSqlRepository(PostgreSqlDbContext context) : base(context) { }
//...
}
In your controllers you can now inject the appropriate repository and use it to interact with the database.
You can also use dependency injection to inject the appropriate DbContext based on the configuration.
Additional:
Here is an example of how you can do this:
In your appsettings.json file, add a section for the database connection information, such as:
{
"ConnectionStrings": {
"MySqlConnection": "Server=localhost;Database=mydb;User=user;Password=password;",
"PostgreSqlConnection": "Host=localhost;Database=mydb;Username=user;Password=password;"
},
"DatabaseProvider": "MySql"
}
Here the DatabaseProvider field indicate the database that user wants to use.
2. In your Startup.cs file, create a new method called ConfigureDbContext that will configure the DbContext based on the configuration in the appsettings file
public void ConfigureDbContext(IServiceCollection services)
{
var connectionString = Configuration.GetConnectionString("MySqlConnection");
var provider = Configuration.GetValue<string>("DatabaseProvider");
if(provider == "MySql")
{
services.AddDbContext<MySqlDbContext>(options => options.UseMySql(connectionString));
}
else if (provider == "PostgreSql")
{
services.AddDbContext<PostgreSqlDbContext>(options => options.UseNpgsql(connectionString));
}
}
In the ConfigureServices method in Startup.cs, call the ConfigureDbContext method to configure the DbContext.
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
ConfigureDbContext(services);
//...
}
In your controllers, you can now inject the appropriate DbContext using dependency injection.
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly IDbContext _context;
public MyController(IDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
//...
}
I am having two dbcontext so want to pass it though some function so I can switch between the two dbcontext or I have to change in all the api controller
public class AccountClassesController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context;
public AccountClassesController(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
// GET: api/AccountClasses
[HttpGet]
public async Task<ActionResult<IEnumerable<AccountClass>>> GetAccountClass()
{
return await _context.AccountClass.ToListAsync();
}
don't want to call the ApplicationDbContext from controller call it through some function or something
I have implemented database connection for postgresql and sqlserver now for them each one creates a different type of migration in code first, so had to create two dbcontext, now I want to be able to switch between dbcontext when I using postgresql or sql server
Yes, you can create interfaces and modify your ApplicationDbContext to implement.
interface
public interface IAccountClass {
Task<IEnumerable<AccountClass>> GetAccountClass();
}
public class AppDbContext: DbContext, IAccount {
/* implementing interface
*/
public Task<IEnumerable<AccountClass>> GetAccountClass() {
return this.AccountClass.ToListAsync();
}
}
Inject DbContext instance casting as interface in your controller:
public AccountClassesController(IAccountClass accountClass)
{
_accountClass = accountClass;
}
// GET: api/AccountClasses
[HttpGet]
public async Task<ActionResult<IEnumerable<AccountClass>>> GetAccountClass()
{
return await this._accountClass.GetAccountClass();
}
You must configure you dependency injection framework to inject a new ApplicationDbContext as IAccountClass.
You can check this answer here is it a good practice to pass an EF DbContext as delegate in services to attach all changes on it.
But if you application don't have any performance issues is fine even if you instance new context due EF is incredible fast managing and building it up.
With EF Core, DbContext is registered as Scoped by EF service extension. This is desirable because DbContext is not thread-safe and therefore it should be created per request.
ServiceStack IOC treats any Scoped registration in Startup as singleton, which contradicts with the point above.
One possible solution is to not use EF Core's service extension, but that seems to bring a lot of boilerplate code and reduce maintainability. Is there any better way?
--
UPDATE
I'd like to provide sample code for clarity
I added a private Guid to the DbContext class so that I can tell whether we have the new instance.
public class BloggingContext : DbContext
{
private readonly Guid _instance;
public BloggingContext(DbContextOptions<BloggingContext> options)
: base(options)
{
_instance = Guid.NewGuid();
}
public DbSet<Blog> Blogs { get; set; }
}
With .NET Core MVC, the controller code looks like
public class BlogsController : Controller
{
private readonly BloggingContext _context;
public BlogsController(BloggingContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
// skip for readability
}
For each request hitting the controller, the _instance inside BloggingContext returns an unique value. However, when using within a ServiceStack service, _instance always returns the same value.
public class BlogService : ServiceStack.Service
{
private readonly BloggingContext _context;
public BlogService(BloggingContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
// skip for readability
}
This behaviour is consistent with ServiceStack documentation about .NET Core Container Adapter that scoped dependencies registered in .NET Core Startup is singleton within ServiceStack. However, it is not desirable because we want DbContext to be created per request.
My solution is that I move the DbContext registration into AppHost code as below
public override void Configure(Container container)
{
container.AddScoped(c =>
{
var optionsBuilder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<BloggingContext>();
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer(connection);
return new BloggingContext(optionsBuilder.Options);
});
}
This code works as I expect. Every instance of BloggingContext injected into my BlogService is now unique. However, I find myself unable to use any service collection extension which is very handy in .Net Core Startup anymore. For example, I want to use Entity Framework Unit Of Work and I couldn't call
services
.AddUnitOfWork<BloggingContext>();
Instead, I have to wire up all dependencies of that library myself like
public override void Configure(Container container)
{
container.AddScoped(c =>
{
var optionsBuilder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<BloggingContext>();
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer(connection);
return new BloggingContext(optionsBuilder.Options);
});
container.AddScoped<IRepositoryFactory, UnitOfWork<BloggingContext>>();
container.AddScoped<IUnitOfWork, UnitOfWork<BloggingContext>>();
container.AddScoped<IUnitOfWork<BloggingContext>, UnitOfWork<BloggingContext>>();
}
You should be able to register it in .NET Core's IOC like any .NET Core App:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddDbContext<BloggingContext>(options =>
options.UseSqlite("Data Source=blog.db"));
}
Then reference like a normal dependency in your ServiceStack Services:
public class MyServices : Service
{
public BloggingContext BloggingContext { get; set; }
}
Which uses ServiceStack's .NET Core Container Adapter to resolve any dependencies not in ServiceStack's IOC, in .NET Core's IOC.
The projects in my solution are set up like this:
App.Data
App.Models
App.Web
In App.Data, I'm using Entity Framework to access my data with a bunch of Repositories to abstract interaction with it. For obvious reasons, I would like my App.Web to reference only the App.Data project and not Entity Framework.
I'm using Constructor Injection to give my Controllers a reference to a Repository container that looks like this:
public interface IDataRepository
{
IUserRepository User { get; set; }
IProductRepository Product { get; set; }
// ...
}
public class DataRepository : IDataRepository
{
private readonly AppContext _context;
public DataRepository(AppContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
// ...
}
DataRepository will have a AppContext object (which inherits from Entity Framework's DbContext) that all the child Repositories will use to access the database.
So finally we come to my problem: how do I use Constructor Injection on DataRepository considering it's a code library and has no entry-point? I can't bootstrap AppContext in App.Web because then I have to reference Entity Framework from that project.
Or am I just doing something stupid?
You can define a RepositoryConnection class in App.Data that acts as a wrapper to the Context and removes the need to reference EF in App.Web. If you are using an IoC Container you can control the lifetime of the RepositoryConnection class to ensure that all instances of Repository get the same Context. This is a simplified example ...
public class RepositoryConnection
{
private readonly AppContext _context;
public RepositoryConnection()
{
_context = new AppContext();
}
public AppContext AppContext { get { return _context; } }
}
public class DataRepository : IDataRepository
{
private readonly AppContext _context;
public DataRepository(RepositoryConnection connection)
{
_context = connection.AppContext;
}
// ...
}
I'm using StructureMap to resolve references to my repository class. My repository interface implements IDisposable, e.g.
public interface IMyRepository : IDisposable
{
SomeClass GetById(int id);
}
An implementation of the interface using Entity Framework:
public MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
private MyDbContext _dbContext;
public MyDbContext()
{
_dbContext = new MyDbContext();
}
public SomeClass GetById(int id)
{
var query = from x in _dbContext
where x.Id = id
select x;
return x.FirstOrDefault();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_dbContext.Dispose();
}
}
Anyway as mentioned I'm using StructureMap to resolve IMyRepository. So when, where and how should I call my dispose method?
WARNING: please note that my views have changed, and you should consider the following advise outdated. Please see this answer for an updated view: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30287923/264697
While DI frameworks can manage lifetime of objects for you and some could even dispose objects for you after you're done using with them, it makes object disposal just too implicit. The IDisposable interface is created because there was the need of deterministic clean-up of resources. Therefore, in the context of DI, I personally like to make this clean-up very explicit. When you make it explicit, you've got basically two options: 1. Configure the DI to return transient objects and dispose these objects yourself. 2. Configure a factory and instruct the factory to create new instances.
I favor the second approach over the first, because especially when doing Dependency Injection, your code isn't as clean as it could be. Look for instance at this code:
public sealed class Client : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDependency dependency;
public Client(IDependency dependency)
{
this. dependency = dependency;
}
public void Do()
{
this.dependency.DoSomething();
}
public Dispose()
{
this.dependency.Dispose();
}
}
While this code explicitly disposes the dependency, it could raise some eyebrows to readers, because resources should normally only be disposed by the owner of the resource. Apparently, the Client became the owner of the resource, when it was injected.
Because of this, I favor the use of a factory. Look for instance at this example:
public sealed class Client
{
private readonly IDependencyFactory factory;
public Client(IDependencyFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Do()
{
using (var dependency = this.factory.CreateNew())
{
dependency.DoSomething();
}
}
}
This example has the exact same behavior as the previous example, but see how the Client class doesn't have to implement IDisposable anymore, because it creates and disposes the resource within the Do method.
Injecting a factory is the most explicit way (the path of least surprise) to do this. That's why I prefer this style. Downside of this is that you often need to define more classes (for your factories), but I personally don't mind.
RPM1984 asked for a more concrete example.
I would not have the repository implement IDisposable, but have a Unit of Work that implements IDisposable, controls/contains repositories and have a factory that knows how to create new unit of works. With that in mind, the above code would look like this:
public sealed class Client
{
private readonly INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory factory;
public Client(INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Do()
{
using (NorthwindUnitOfWork db =
this.factory.CreateNew())
{
// 'Customers' is a repository.
var customer = db.Customers.GetById(1);
customer.Name = ".NET Junkie";
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
In the design I use, and have described here, I use a concrete NorthwindUnitOfWork class that wraps an IDataMapper that is the gateway to the underlying LINQ provider (such as LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework). In sumary, the design is as follows:
An INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory is injected in a client.
The particular implementation of that factory creates a concrete NorthwindUnitOfWork class and injects a O/RM specific IDataMapper class into it.
The NorthwindUnitOfWork is in fact a type-safe wrapper around the IDataMapper and the NorthwindUnitOfWork requests the IDataMapper for repositories and forwards requests to submit changes and dispose to the mapper.
The IDataMapper returns Repository<T> classes and a repository implements IQueryable<T> to allow the client to use LINQ over the repository.
The specific implementation of the IDataMapper holds a reference to the O/RM specific unit of work (for instance EF's ObjectContext). For that reason the IDataMapper must implement IDisposable.
This results in the following design:
public interface INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
{
NorthwindUnitOfWork CreateNew();
}
public interface IDataMapper : IDisposable
{
Repository<T> GetRepository<T>() where T : class;
void Save();
}
public abstract class Repository<T> : IQueryable<T>
where T : class
{
private readonly IQueryable<T> query;
protected Repository(IQueryable<T> query)
{
this.query = query;
}
public abstract void InsertOnSubmit(T entity);
public abstract void DeleteOnSubmit(T entity);
// IQueryable<T> members omitted.
}
The NorthwindUnitOfWork is a concrete class that contains properties to specific repositories, such as Customers, Orders, etc:
public sealed class NorthwindUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDataMapper mapper;
public NorthwindUnitOfWork(IDataMapper mapper)
{
this.mapper = mapper;
}
// Repository properties here:
public Repository<Customer> Customers
{
get { return this.mapper.GetRepository<Customer>(); }
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.mapper.Dispose();
}
}
What's left is an concrete implementation of the INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory and a concrete implementation of the IDataMapper. Here's one for Entity Framework:
public class EntityFrameworkNorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
: INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
{
public NorthwindUnitOfWork CreateNew()
{
var db = new ObjectContext("name=NorthwindEntities");
db.DefaultContainerName = "NorthwindEntities";
var mapper = new EntityFrameworkDataMapper(db);
return new NorthwindUnitOfWork(mapper);
}
}
And the EntityFrameworkDataMapper:
public sealed class EntityFrameworkDataMapper : IDataMapper
{
private readonly ObjectContext context;
public EntityFrameworkDataMapper(ObjectContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public void Save()
{
this.context.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.context.Dispose();
}
public Repository<T> GetRepository<T>() where T : class
{
string setName = this.GetEntitySetName<T>();
var query = this.context.CreateQuery<T>(setName);
return new EntityRepository<T>(query, setName);
}
private string GetEntitySetName<T>()
{
EntityContainer container =
this.context.MetadataWorkspace.GetEntityContainer(
this.context.DefaultContainerName, DataSpace.CSpace);
return (
from item in container.BaseEntitySets
where item.ElementType.Name == typeof(T).Name
select item.Name).First();
}
private sealed class EntityRepository<T>
: Repository<T> where T : class
{
private readonly ObjectQuery<T> query;
private readonly string entitySetName;
public EntityRepository(ObjectQuery<T> query,
string entitySetName) : base(query)
{
this.query = query;
this.entitySetName = entitySetName;
}
public override void InsertOnSubmit(T entity)
{
this.query.Context.AddObject(entitySetName, entity);
}
public override void DeleteOnSubmit(T entity)
{
this.query.Context.DeleteObject(entity);
}
}
}
You can find more information about this model here.
UPDATE December 2012
This an an update written two years after my original answer. The last two years much has changed in the way I try to design the systems I'm working on. Although it has suited me in the past, I don't like to use the factory approach anymore when dealing with the Unit of Work pattern. Instead I simply inject a Unit of Work instance into consumers directly. Whether this design is feasibly for you however, depends a lot on the way your system is designed. If you want to read more about this, please take a look at this newer Stackoverflow answer of mine: One DbContext per web request…why?
If you want to get it right, i'd advise on a couple of changes:
1 - Don't have private instances of the data context in the repository. If your working with multiple repositories then you'll end up with multiple contexts.
2 - To solve the above - wrap the context in a Unit of Work. Pass the unit of work to the Repositories via the ctor: public MyRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
3 - Make the Unit of Work implement IDisposable. The Unit of Work should be "newed up" when a request begins, and therefore should be disposed when the request finishes. The Repository should not implement IDisposable, as it is not directly working with resources - it is simply mitigating them. The DataContext / Unit of Work should implement IDispoable.
4 - Assuming you are using a web application, you do not need to explicitly call dispose - i repeat, you do not need to explicitly call your dispose method. StructureMap has a method called HttpContextBuildPolicy.DisposeAndClearAll();. What this does is invoke the "Dispose" method on any HTTP-scoped objects that implement IDisposable. Stick this call in Application_EndRequest (Global.asax). Also - i believe there is an updated method, called ReleaseAllHttpScopedObjects or something - can't remember the name.
Instead of adding Dispose to IMyRepository, you could declare IMyRepository like this:
public interface IMyRepository: IDisposable
{
SomeClass GetById(int id);
}
This way, you ensure all repository will call Dispose sometimes, and you can use the C# "using" pattern on a Repository object:
using (IMyRepository rep = GetMyRepository(...))
{
... do some work with rep
}