Avoid lazyloader attribute - entity-framework

I´ve been looking for how avoid return a list without the attribute lazyLoader, I want to continue using the lazyLoader but I don´t want return the attribute when I return the whole list of my entity from my controller
I´m working with .NET core.
[
{
"lazyLoader": {},
"id": "id1"
"name": "name"
},
{
"lazyLoader": {},
"id": "id2",
"name": "name2"
}
]

You can do a select of you collection only retrieving the rest of the data.
That way your objects will not have the Navigation property at all.
db.YourCollection.Where(your condition)Select(x => new { id = x.id , name = x.name } );

In Entity Framework, if you have an object where one or more of its properties use lazy loading, check its runtime type name using GetType().Name. For an object of a Car class, for example, you will notice that the runtime type is actually something called CarProxy, which is a temporary in-memory type created by Entity Framework using reflection. This "fake" proxy class's base type is Car, and has all the original Car properties, but includes an extra one called LazyLoader for properties that may need it.
If you do further checking on this "fake" CarProxy type, you will also see that Assembly.IsDynamic = true, which is indicative that the class was created dynamically using reflection (see documentation):
var TheCar = DBContext.Cars.Find(1);
Console.WriteLine(TheCar.GetType().Assembly.IsDynamic.ToString()); //will echo "true"
Luckily, Newtonsoft.Json has an override on the JsonConvert.SerializeObject() method that allows us to provide a base type, so that the resulting JSON doesn't contain properties that don't exist in that type. So, to eliminate the LazyLoader property, just provide the object's BaseType as the type parameter:
var TheCar = DBContext.Cars.Find(1);
var TheJSON = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.SerializeObject(TheCar, TheCar.GetType().BaseType);
To make sure you don't get any circular reference loops when serializing (a very high probability when using lazy loading), call the serializer with the following setting:
var TheCar = DBContext.Cars.Find(1);
var Settings = new Newtonsoft.Json.JsonSerializerSettings
{
ReferenceLoopHandling = Newtonsoft.Json.ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore
};
var TheJSON = Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.SerializeObject(TheCar, TheCar.GetType().BaseType, Settings);
Note: This may only work on the first level deep when the serializer travels through the object. If there are yet more lazy-loading child properties of the object you provide to the serializer, the "LazyLoader" property may appear again. I haven't tested it so I can't say for sure.

I know this is old, but add
public boolean ShouldSerializeLazyLoader() { return false; }
to all the classes down the tree of the ones you want to serialize, and you will get a lazyloader free JSON.
Ref.: https://www.newtonsoft.com/json/help/html/ConditionalProperties.htm

The checked answer for this question is just working for the root object, if we have many nested lazyloaded objects, this solution will not work.
Although the answer of #Marcello-Barbiani is correct but it is not a good way to add this function to all entities we have.
The best way is create a new ContractResolver derived from DefaultContractResolver and check if property is Lazyloader then skip it as below:
public class NonLazyloaderContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
public new static readonly NonLazyloaderContractResolver Instance = new NonLazyloaderContractResolver();
protected override JsonProperty CreateProperty(MemberInfo member, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
JsonProperty property = base.CreateProperty(member, memberSerialization);
if (property.PropertyName == "LazyLoader")
{
property.ShouldSerialize = i => false;
}
return property;
}
}
after that adding above class pass it through JsonSerializerSettings while serializing the object:
var json = JsonConvert.SerializeObject(newProduct, new JsonSerializerSettings() {
ContractResolver = new NonLazyloaderContractResolver(),
ReferenceLoopHandling = ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore,
DefaultValueHandling = DefaultValueHandling.Ignore });
and finally if you are using asp.net core or asp.net core webapi add this contract as default contractresolver in startup.cs file:
services.AddMvc()
.SetCompatibilityVersion(CompatibilityVersion.Version_2_1)
.AddJsonOptions(options =>
{
options.SerializerSettings.ContractResolver = new NonLazyloaderContractResolver();
options.SerializerSettings.ReferenceLoopHandling = Newtonsoft.Json.ReferenceLoopHandling.Ignore;
});

Related

Delete loaded and unloaded objects by ID in EntityFrameworkCore

I have a method that receives an IEnumerable<Guid> of IDs to objects I want to delete. One suggested method is as follows
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
DataContext.Attach(tempInstance); // Exception here
DataContext.Remove(tempInstance);
}
This works fine if the objects aren't already loaded into memory. But my problem is that when they are already loaded then the Attach method throws an InvalidOperationException - The instance of entity type 'MyEntity' cannot be tracked because another instance with the key value 'Id:...' is already being tracked. The same happens if I use DataContext.Remove without calling Attach.
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
DataContext.Remove(tempInstance); // Exception here
}
I don't want to use DataContext.Find to grab the instance of an already loaded object because that will load the object into memory if it isn't already loaded.
I cannot use DataContext.ChangeTracker to find already loaded objects because only objects with modified state appear in there and my objects might be loaded and unmodified.
The following approach throws the same InvalidOperationException when setting EntityEntry.State, even when I override GetHashCode and Equals on MyEntity to ensure dictionary lookups see them as the same object.
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
EntityEntry entry = DataContext.Entry(tempInstance);
entry.State == EntityState.Deleted; // Exception here
}
The only way so far I have found that I can achieve deleting objects by ID without knowing if the object is the following:
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
try
{
DataContext.Attach(tempInstance); // Exception here
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
}
DataContext.Remove(tempInstance);
}
It's odd that I am able to call DataContext.Remove(tempInstance) without error after experiencing an exception trying to Attach it, but at this point it does work without an exception and also deletes the correct rows from the database when DataContext.SaveChanges is executed.
I don't like catching the exception. Is there a "good" way of achieving what I want?
Note: If the class has a self-reference then you need to load the objects into memory so EntityFrameworkCore can determine in which order to delete the objects.
Strangely, although this is a quite common exception in EF6 and EF Core, neither of them expose publicly a method for programmatically detecting the already tracked entity instance with the same key. Note that overriding GetHashCode and Equals doesn't help since EF is using reference equality for tracking entity instances.
Of course it can be obtained from the DbSet<T>.Local property, but it would not be as efficient as the internal EF mechanism used by Find and the methods throwing the aforementioned exception. All we need is the first part of the Find method and returning null when not found instead of loading from the database.
Luckily, for EF Core the method that we need can be implemented relatively easily by using some of the EF Core internals (under the standard This API supports the Entity Framework Core infrastructure and is not intended to be used directly from your code. This API may change or be removed in future releases. policy). Here is the sample implementation, tested on EF Core 2.0.1:
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Internal;
namespace Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
{
public static partial class CustomExtensions
{
public static TEntity FindTracked<TEntity>(this DbContext context, params object[] keyValues)
where TEntity : class
{
var entityType = context.Model.FindEntityType(typeof(TEntity));
var key = entityType.FindPrimaryKey();
var stateManager = context.GetDependencies().StateManager;
var entry = stateManager.TryGetEntry(key, keyValues);
return entry?.Entity as TEntity;
}
}
}
Now you can use simply:
foreach (var id in ids)
DataContext.Remove(DataContext.FindTracked<MyEntity>(id) ?? new MyEntity { Id = id }));
or
DataContext.RemoveRange(ids.Select(id =>
DataContext.FindTracked<MyEntity>(id) ?? new MyEntity { Id = id }));

JPA and "anonymous" classes in scala

I'm a bit stuck and don't understand what's going on.
This one doesn't work
#Entity
#DynamicInsert
#DynamicUpdate
#SelectBeforeUpdate
#Table
class Entity {
#Column(nullable = false)
var owner: String = _
}
val myEntity = new Entity() {
owner = "some owner 1"
}
session.persist(myEntity)
Hibernate throws exception:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Unknown entity:persistence.dao.EntityDaoTest$$anonfun$13$$anonfun$14$$anon$5
at org.hibernate.internal.SessionImpl.firePersist(SessionImpl.java:777)
This one works:
val myEntity = new Entity()
entity.owner = "some owner 1"
session.persist(myEntity)
Why? Why does hibernate don't recognize my Entity instance?
UPD:
#Sheinbergon, thanks, it's clear. I completely forgot that annotations are lost. Is there any possibility to set entity fields with some shortcut?
writing
val myEntity = new MyEntity()
myEntity.owner = "some owner"
myEntity.someOtherProperty = "value"
is super boring
One more question
This one works:
val parent = new Parent
parent.owner = "Our parent"
parent.addChild(new Child() {
name = "First parent's child"
addGrandChild(new GrandChild() {
name = "Grand child name"
addGrandGrandChild(new GrandGrandChild() {
name = "Grand Grand child name"
address = new Address() {
id = 1L
}
})
})
})
Why? Child, GrandChild, GrandGrandChild also created anonymously.
addChild, addGrandChild, addGrandGrandChild are just list mutators.
def addChild(child: Child): Unit = {
if (children == null) {
children = new util.ArrayList[Child]()
}
if (Option(child.parent).isEmpty) {
child.parent = this
}
children.add(child)
}
What you are doing here is instantiating a class anonymously in Scala , and well... that creates an anonymous implementation of your class Entity ( like instantiating an interface anonymously in Java).
you can see it by printing the class name - println(myEntity.getClass) in both cases
Annotations applied to the original class do not apply to the anonymous one (reflection can still find them in the super class, but that's up to the code scanning them) and I guess that's why you're getting the various JPA exceptions
In response to your added sub-questions
Regarding a shortcut - why don't you use companion objects for factories or turn this class into a case class (with defaults), allowing for nicer, more flexible initialization.
Regarding the second object graph(and assuming eachof your classes are annotated) - again it depends on how the reflective code treats the objects it scans. it's possible ( and more likely, given that it won't scan each member of the collection for annotations ) it takes annotation definitions from the erased type ( possible to get it's FQDN class name as ParameterizedType in Java's reflection API) of the collection and not from the actual members of the collection and that's why it works.
I'm not really sure what it does about field definitions though (they are only present in the "super" class), but there's no "magic" here, just plain old reflection scans.

How can I create a generic update method for One to Many structures in Entity Framework 5?

I am writing a web application, such that I get different objects back from the web that need to be either updated or added to the database. On top of this, I need to check that the owner is not modified. Since a hacker could potentially get an account and send an update to modify the foreign key to the user model. I don't want to have to manually code all of these methods, instead I want to make a simple generic call.
Maybe something as simple as this
ctx.OrderLines.AddOrUpdateSet(order.OrderLines, a => a.Order)
Based on old persisted records that have a foreign key to Order, and on the new incoming records.
Delete old records that are not on the new records list.
Add new records that are not on the old records list.
Update new records that exist on both lists.
ctx.Entry(orderLine).State=EntityState.Deleted;
...
ctx.Entry(orderLine).State=EntityState.Added;
...
ctx.Entry(orderLine).State=EntityState.Modified;
This gets a bit complicated when the old record is loaded to verify that ownership did not change. I get an error if I don't do.
oldorder.OrderLines.remove(oldOrderLine); //for deletes
oldorder.OrderLines.add(oldOrderLine); //for adds
ctx.Entry(header).CurrentValues.SetValues(header); //for modifications
With Entity Framework 5 there is a new extension function called AddOrUpdate. And there was a very interesting (please read) blog entry on how to create this method before it was added.
I'm not sure if this is too much to ask as a question in StackOverflow, any clues on how to approach the problem may be sufficient. Here are my thoughts so far:
a) leverage AddOrUpdate for some of the functionality.
b) create a secondary context hoping to avoid loading order into the context and avoid extra calls.
c) Set the state of all the saved objects to initially deleted.
Since you have linked to this question from my own question, I thought I'd throw in some newly-aquired experience with Entity Framework for me.
To achieve a common save method in my generic repository with Entity Framework, I do this. (Please note that the Context is a member of my repository, as I am implementing the Unit of Work pattern as well)
public class EFRepository<TEntity> : IRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
internal readonly AwesomeContext Context;
internal readonly DbSet<TEntity> DbSet;
public EFRepository(AwesomeContext context)
{
if (context == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context");
Context = context;
DbSet = context.Set<TEntity>();
}
// Rest of implementation removed for brevity
public void Save(TEntity entity)
{
var entry = Context.Entry(entity);
if (entry.State == EntityState.Detached)
DbSet.Add(entity);
else entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
}
}
Honestly, I can't tell you why this works, because I just kept changing the state conditions - however I do have unit (integration) tests to prove that it works. Hopefully someone more into EF than myself can shed some light on this.
Regarding the "cascading updates", I was curious myself as if it would work using the Unit of Work pattern (my question I linked to was when I did not know it existed, and my repositories would basically create a unit of work whenever I wanted to save/get/delete, which is bad), so I threw in a test case in a simple relational DB. Here is a diagram to give you an idea.
IMPORTANT In order for test case number 2 to work, you need to make your POCO reference properties virtual, in order for EF to provide lazy loading.
The repository implementation is just derived from the generic EFRepository<TEntity> as shown above, so I'll leave out that implementation.
These are my test cases, both pass.
public class EFResourceGroupFacts
{
[Fact]
public void Saving_new_resource_will_cascade_properly()
{
// Recreate a fresh database and add some dummy data.
SetupTestCase();
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
var cultureRepo = new EFCultureRepository(ctx);
var resourceRepo = new EFResourceRepository(cultureRepo, ctx);
var existingCulture = cultureRepo.Get(1); // First and only culture.
var groupToAdd = new ResourceGroup("Added Group");
var resourceToAdd = new Resource(existingCulture,"New Resource", "Resource to add to existing group.",groupToAdd);
// Verify we got a single resource group.
Assert.Equal(1,ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
// Saving the resource should also add the group.
resourceRepo.Save(resourceToAdd);
ctx.SaveChanges();
// Verify the group was added without explicitly saving it.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
}
// try creating a new Unit of Work to really verify it has been persisted..
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
Assert.DoesNotThrow(() => ctx.ResourceGroups.First(rg => rg.Name == "Added Group"));
}
}
[Fact]
public void Changing_existing_resources_group_saves_properly()
{
SetupTestCase();
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
ctx.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
var cultureRepo = new EFCultureRepository(ctx);
var resourceRepo = new EFResourceRepository(cultureRepo, ctx);
// This resource already has a group.
var existingResource = resourceRepo.Get(2);
Assert.NotNull(existingResource.ResourceGroup); // IMPORTANT: Property must be virtual!
// Verify there is only one resource group in the datastore.
Assert.Equal(1,ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
existingResource.ResourceGroup = new ResourceGroup("I am implicitly added to the database. How cool is that?");
// Make sure there are 2 resources in the datastore before saving.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.Resources.Count());
resourceRepo.Save(existingResource);
ctx.SaveChanges();
// Make sure there are STILL only 2 resources in the datastore AFTER saving.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.Resources.Count());
// Make sure the new group was added.
Assert.Equal(2,ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
// Refetch from store, verify relationship.
existingResource = resourceRepo.Get(2);
Assert.Equal(2,existingResource.ResourceGroup.Id);
// let's change the group to an existing group
existingResource.ResourceGroup = ctx.ResourceGroups.First();
resourceRepo.Save(existingResource);
ctx.SaveChanges();
// Assert no change in groups.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
// Refetch from store, verify relationship.
existingResource = resourceRepo.Get(2);
Assert.Equal(1, existingResource.ResourceGroup.Id);
}
}
private void SetupTestCase()
{
// Delete everything first. Database.SetInitializer does not work very well for me.
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
ctx.Database.Delete();
ctx.Database.Create();
var culture = new Culture("en-US", "English");
var resourceGroup = new ResourceGroup("Existing Group");
var resource = new Resource(culture, "Existing Resource 1",
"This resource will already exist when starting the test. Initially it has no group.");
var resourceWithGroup = new Resource(culture, "Exising Resource 2",
"Same for this resource, except it has a group.",resourceGroup);
ctx.Cultures.Add(culture);
ctx.ResourceGroups.Add(resourceGroup);
ctx.Resources.Add(resource);
ctx.Resources.Add(resourceWithGroup);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
It was interesting to learn this, as I was not sure if it would work.
After working on this for a while I found an opensource project called GraphDiff here is it's blog entry 'introducing graphdiff for entity framework code first – allowing automated updates of a graph of detached entities'. I only began using it but it looks impressive. And it does solve the problem of issuing update/delete/insert for Many to One relationships. It actually generalizes the problem to graphs and allows arbitrary nesting.
Here is the generic method I concocted. It does use AddOrUpdate from the System.Data.Entity.Migrations namespace. Which may be reloading records from the db, I'll be checking on that later. The usage is
ctx.OrderLines.AddOrUpdateSet(l => l.orderId == neworder.Id,
l => l.Id, order.orderLines);
Here is the code:
public static class UpdateExtensions
{
public static void AddOrUpdateSet<TEntity>(this IDbSet<TEntity> set, Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> predicate,
Func<TEntity, int> selector, IEnumerable<TEntity> newRecords) where TEntity : class
{
List<TEntity> oldRecords = set.Where(predicate).ToList();
IEnumerable<int> keys = newRecords.Select(selector);
foreach (TEntity newRec in newRecords)
set.AddOrUpdate(newRec);
oldRecords.FindAll(old => !keys.Contains(selector(old))).ForEach(detail => set.Remove(detail));
}
}

Unit of Work, LazyLoading Disabled, Generic Repository, IncludeMultiple<T>, Http 500 error

I have a Vehicle with an association to Model, Model has an association to Make.
Here is my Generic Repository as pertaining to associations as LazyLoadingEnabled = false in my project:
public IQueryable<T> IncludeMultiple<T1>(params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] associations) where T1 : class
{
var source = (IQueryable<T>)DbContext.Set<T>();
if (associations != null)
{
foreach (Expression<Func<T, object>> path in associations)
source = DbExtensions.Include<T, object>(source, path);
}
return source;
}
In my api controller, I am using Unit of work pattern. Here is my GetAll method:
public IEnumerable<Vehicle> GetAll()
{
var vehicles = Uow.VehicleRepository.IncludeMultiple<Vehicle>(c => c.VehicleModel).ToList();
return vehicles;
}
Everything works fine and Json retrieves the Vehicle class data as well as the related VehicleModel class data.
However, Vehicle has no direct association to VehicleMake, only VehicleModel does. Now, if my GetAll method has this:
public IEnumerable<Vehicle> GetAll()
{
var vehicles = Uow.VehicleRepository.IncludeMultiple<Vehicle>(c => c.VehicleModel, c => c.VehicleModel.VehicleMake).ToList();
return vehicles;
}
while I see in debug that vehicles does indeed have the vehicles and their relevant VehicleModel and VehicleMake data, it returns a Http 500 error in Fiddler.
Update:
Added another association in Vehicle called "Test", with the GetAll method being:
(c => c.VehicleModel, c => c.Test)
No error, all data was returned via fiddler. So, it appears that a "Non-direct association" (ie Vehicle -> VehicleMake) is the cause of the error.
Question:
What would be the correct way to retrieving the relevant Vehicle data and its associated classes' data and return it to Json while not getting a Http 500 error?
*SOLVED *
This works:
public HttpResponseMessage GetAll()
{
var vehicles = from data in Uow.VehicleRepository.IncludeMultiple<Vehicle>(c => c.VehicleModel,c => c.VehicleModel.VehicleMake)
select new
{
VehDesc = data.Description,
VehVIN = data.VIN,
VehTransmissionType = data.TransmissionType,
VehFuelType = data.FuelType,
VehYear = data.Year,
VehMileage = data.Mileage,
VehCylinderSize = data.CylinderSize,
VehEngineSize = data.EngineSize,
VehVehicleModel = data.VehicleModel.Name,
VehMakeName = data.VehicleModel.VehicleMake.Name
};
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, vehicles);
}
Basically,
1. I used an HttpResponseMessage as my return type;
2. I used projection to create an anonymous type;
Why did I have to do this?
As near as I can tell, the issue centered on JSON receiving a "circular" return with VehicleModel and VehicleMake. That is, VehicleModel had a association to VehicleMake and VehicleMake has a collection of VehicleModels. When I looked in my debug code I could see a cascade of VehicleModel to VehicleMake to VehicleModel, etc, etc, etc, so to me that meant it was circular.
If anyone knows a better way w/o using anonymous type nor removing the virtual keyword from my navigation properties, I would certainly like to know it. But this does truly work.
FinalNote: Be sure NOT to use the model's property names in anonymous type, ie replace property "TransmissionType" with something like "VehTransmissionType".

Compose part with specific instance

Is there any way I can compose (or get an exported value) with a specific instance as one of it's dependencies?
I have something like this:
public interface IEntityContext
{
IEntitySet<T> GetEntitySet<T>();
}
[Export(typeof(IEntitySet<MyEntity>))]
class MyEntitySet
{
public MyEntitySet(IEntityContext context)
{
}
}
// then through code
var container = ...;
using (var context = container.GetExportedValue<IEntityContext>())
{
var myEntitySet = context.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>();
// I wan't myEntitySet to have the above context constructor injected
}
I'm trying to mock something like entity framework for testability sake. Not sure though if I would want to go down this road. Anyway, should I be creating a new container for this very purpose. A container specific to the mocking of this one IEntityContext object.
So, if my understanding is correct, you want to be able to inject whatever IEntityContext is available to your instance of MyEntitySet?
[Export(typeof(IEntitySet<MyEntity>))]
public class MyEntitySet : IEntitySet<MyEntity>
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public MyEntitySet(IEntityContext context)
{
}
}
Given that you then want to mock the IEntityContext? If so, you could then do this:
var contextMock = new Mock<IEntityContext>();
var setMock = new Mock<IEntitySet<MyEntity>>();
contextMock
.Setup(m => m.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>())
.Returns(setMock.Object);
Container.ComposeExportedValue<IEntityContext>(contextMock.Object);
var context = Container.GetExportedValue<IEntityContext>();
var entitySet = context.GetEntitySet<MyEntity>();
(That's using Moq)
You can use your existing CompositionContainer infrastructure by adding an exported value.
Does that help at all? Sorry it doesn't seem exactly clear what you are trying to do...