How do I implement DbContext inheritance for multiple databases in EF7 / .NET Core - entity-framework

I am building web APIs in ASP.NET Core 1.1.
I have a number different databases (for different systems) which have common base schemas for configuration items such as Configuration, Users and groups (about 25 tables in all). I am trying to avoid duplicating the quite extensive EF configuration for the shared part of the model by inheriting from a base class as shown in the diagram.
However, this does not work because of the Entity Framework (EF) requirement to pass DbContextOptions<DerivedRepository> as a parameter to the constructor, where DerivedRepository must match the type of the repository the constructor is called on. The parameter must then be passed down to the base DbContext by calling :base(param).
So when (for example) InvestContext is initialised with DbContextOptions<InvestContext>, it calls base(DbContextOptions<InvestContext>) and EF throws an error because the call to the ConfigurationContext constructor is receiving a parameter of type DbContextOptions<InvestContext> instead of the required type DbContextOptions<ConfigurationContext>. Since the options field on DbContext is defined as
private readonly DbContextOptions _options;
I can't see a way around this.
What is the best way to define the shared model once and use it multiple times? I guess I could create a helper function and call it from every derived context, but it's not nearly as clean or transparent as inheritance.

I would like to bring this post from the OP's GitHub issue to everyone's attention:
I was able to resolve this without a hack by providing a protected constructor that uses DbContextOptions without any type. Making the second constructor protected ensures that it will not get used by DI.
public class MainDbContext : DbContext {
public MainDbContext(DbContextOptions<MainDbContext> options)
: base(options) {
}
protected MainDbContext(DbContextOptions options)
: base(options) {
}
}
public class SubDbContext : MainDbContext {
public SubDbContext (DbContextOptions<SubDbContext> options)
: base(options) {
}
}

OK, I have got this working in a way which still uses the inheritance hierarchy, like this (using InvestContext from above as the example):
As stated, the InvestContext class receives a constructor parameter of type DbContextOptions<InvestContext>, but must pass DbContextOptions<ConfigurationContext> to it's base.
I have written a method which digs the connectionstring out of a DbContextOptions variable, and builds a DbContextOptions instance of the required type. InvestContext uses this method to convert its options parameter to the right type before calling base().
The conversion method looks like this:
protected static DbContextOptions<T> ChangeOptionsType<T>(DbContextOptions options) where T:DbContext
{
var sqlExt = options.Extensions.FirstOrDefault(e => e is SqlServerOptionsExtension);
if (sqlExt == null)
throw (new Exception("Failed to retrieve SQL connection string for base Context"));
return new DbContextOptionsBuilder<T>()
.UseSqlServer(((SqlServerOptionsExtension)sqlExt).ConnectionString)
.Options;
}
and the InvestContext constructor call changes from this:
public InvestContext(DbContextOptions<InvestContext> options):base(options)
to this:
public InvestContext(DbContextOptions<InvestContext> options):base(ChangeOptionsType<ConfigurationContext>(options))
So far both InvestContext and ConfigurationContext work for simple queries, but it seems like a bit of a hack and possibly not something the designers of EF7 had in mind.
I am still concerned that EF is going to get itself in a knot when I try complex queries, updates etc. It appears that this is not a problem, see below)
Edit: I've logged this problem as an issue with the EF7 team here, and a team member has suggested a change to the EF Core core as follows:
"We should update the check to allow TContext to be a type that is derived from the current context type"
This would solve the problem.
After further interaction with that team member (which you can see on the issue) and some digging through the EF Core code, the approach I've outlined above looks safe and the best approach until the suggested change is implemented.

Depending on your requirements you can simply use the non type specific version of DbContextOptions.
Change these:
public ConfigurationContext(DbContextOptions<ConfigurationContext> options):base(options)
public InvestContext(DbContextOptions<InvestContext> options):base(options)
to this:
public ConfigurationContext(DbContextOptions options):base(options)
public InvestContext(DbContextOptions options):base(options)
Then if you create your ConfigurationContext first, the classes that inherit it seem to get the same configuration. It may also depend on the order in which you initialize the different contexts.
Edit:
My working example:
public class QueryContext : DbContext
{
public QueryContext(DbContextOptions options): base(options)
{
}
}
public class CommandContext : QueryContext
{
public CommandContext(DbContextOptions options): base(options)
{
}
}
And in Startup.cs
services.AddDbContext<CommandContext>(options =>
options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection")));
services.AddDbContext<QueryContext>(options =>
options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection")));
alternatively, in a test class:
var connectionString = "Data Source=MyDatabase;Initial Catalog=MyData;Integrated Security=SSPI;";
var serviceProvider = new ServiceCollection()
.AddDbContext<QueryContext>(options => options.UseSqlServer(connectionString))
.BuildServiceProvider();
_db = serviceProvider.GetService<QueryContext>();

Related

Simultaneous data operation in SQLite and SQL Server databases using Entity Framework and Repository Pattern

I am working on a .net core project where the requirement is to maintain an SQLite DB and an SQL Server DB simultaneously. I created two DbContext files SqlServerContext and SqliteContext and separate migration folders for them. These files are derived from a WorkerContext file that's derived from DbContext. The migration is working properly, as tables are created in both databases. But I could not make simultaneous data operation work.
This is the IKeyboardMouseActivityRepository. There are separate parts for using SqliteContext and SqlServerContext. I have to comment out one part when using the other. So I can do data entry in one DB at a time now.
public interface IKeyboardMouseActivityRepository :
IRepository<KeyboardMouseActivity, Guid, SqlServerContext>
// IRepository<KeyboardMouseActivity, Guid, SqliteContext>
{
}
public class KeyboardMouseActivityRepository :
IKeyboardMouseActivityRepository,
Repository<KeyboardMouseActivity, Guid, SqlServerContext>
// Repository<KeyboardMouseActivity, Guid, SqliteContext>
{
public KeyboardMouseActivityRepository(SqlServerContext dbContext)
: base(dbContext)
{
}
// public KeyboardMouseActivityRepository(SqliteContext dbContext)
// : base(dbContext)
// {
// }
}
This is the main Repository class.
public abstract class Repository<TEntity, TKey, TContext>
: IRepository<TEntity, TKey, TContext>
where TEntity : class, IEntity<TKey>
where TContext : DbContext
{
protected TContext _dbContext;
protected DbSet<TEntity> _dbSet;
public Repository(TContext context)
{
_dbContext = context;
_dbSet = _dbContext.Set<TEntity>();
}
// other methods such as Add, Remove etc.
}
My understanding is that since the context parameter is specified in KeyboardMouseActivityRepository, it only works for that specified context. How can I modify it so it works for both DbContext files and I can do data operation in both DB at the same time?
The repository you have defined is typed per-DbContext. If you want to have a repository that can update two known DbContext implementations then you can back off the Generic approach for the DbContexts and implement the repository to accept one of each in the constructor:
public abstract class Repository<TEntity, TKey>
: IRepository<TEntity, TKey>
where TEntity : class, IEntity<TKey>
{
protected SqlAppDbContext _sqlContext;
protected SqlLiteAppDbContext _sqlLiteContext;
protected DbSet<TEntity> _sqlDbSet;
protected DbSet<TEntity> _sqlLiteDbSet;
public Repository(SqlAppDbContext sqlContext, SqlLiteAppDbContext sqlLiteContext)
{
_sqlContext = sqlContext ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("sqlContext");
_sqlLiteContext = sqlLiteContext ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("sqlLiteContext");
_sqlDbSet = _sqlContext.Set<TEntity>();
_sqlLiteDbSet = _sqlLiteContext.Set<TEntity>();
}
// other methods such as Add, Remove etc.
}
Note that you will want to investigate and implement something like TransactionScope to help ensure that operations done via the repository are mutually committed or rolled back. For instance if you have code that attempts to update data in both DbSets and SaveChanges, if one succeeds and the other fails for any reason, usually the expectation would be they both roll back. Reads I expect would prioritize one DbSet over the other, but expect if you were to want to support something like a fail-over or situational load from one server or the other you will run into issues if it is at all possible that entities fetched from one DbContext are ever married up with entities fetched from the other. (entities loaded by _sqlContext cannot be associated with entities loaded by _sqlLiteContext) When updating entities and associating them via navigation properties you will be loading everything twice or playing a very dangerously error prone game of detaching and reattaching entities betewen DbContexts.
I would advise against using a Generic Repository pattern /w EF. This will paint you into various corners that will limit many of the capabilities that EF can provide for optimizing queries, working with projections, and performing operations like pagination, filtering, sorting, etc. efficiently without a lot of extra code or introducing pretty complex code into the repository.
Overall I wish you luck with the project, however a requirement and design like this will be a nest of hungry dragons for your time and sanity. :)

Exception querying a Mocked Entity Framework Context

When I Create an instance of Mock with MockBehavior.Strict I'm getting the error
An exception of type 'Moq.MockException' occurred in Moq.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: DbContext.Set() invocation failed with mock behavior Strict.
All invocations on the mock must have a corresponding setup.
But I already made the setup for every table including that one:
var mockContext = new Mock<JournalsDB>(MockBehavior.Strict);
mockContext.Setup(m => m.Publications).Returns(mockPublicationSet.Object);
mockContext.Setup(m => m.Journals).Returns(mockJournalSet.Object);
mockContext.Setup(m => m.AspNetUsers).Returns(mockUserSet.Object);
mockContext.Setup(m => m.AspNetRoles).Returns(mockRoleSet.Object);
mockContext.Setup(m => m.AspNetUserClaims).Returns(mockClaimSet.Object);
mockContext.Setup(m => m.AspNetUserLogins).Returns(mockLoginSet.Object);
I suspect that the issue maybe is with my Repository Implementation or the DbContext Implementation:
public class JournalRepository<DataObject, DataContext> : IRepository<DataObject, DataContext>, IDisposable
where DataObject : class
where DataContext : DbContext
{
#region Propiedades
private readonly DataContext _ctx;
etc...
public partial class JournalsDB : DbContext
{
public JournalsDB()
: base("name=JournalsDB")
{
}
public JournalsDB(string connectionName)
: base(connectionName)
{
}
etc...
EDIT:
Without MockBehaviour.Strict I get the error Value cannot be null. Parameter name: source when querying any DbSet but the DbSets are correctly populated.
I really think you're taking the wrong approach here, to be honest. Mocking DbContext is really painful, because that's a really wide interface. This is really a case of trying to dummy up an interface that you don't own. Mocking someone else's interface is always an invitation for trouble. In the case of DbContext you would really want to also mock the behavior of calls like SaveChanges().
I would isolate the usage of DbContext behind a much smaller interface that is easier to mock. Then, you'll have two types of tests you want to write:
Unit test whatever uses the new interface. Those tests will be easier to write because you won't have to dummy up the DbContext
Test the class that implements the interface using a real database with real data in it. This way, you can test your data access layer in isolation.
For a more detailed explanation, see the answer I wrote here: Effort- FirstOrDefault returns null when Faking Database

Using Entity Framework along with Dapper

I need guidance on designing data layer for my Web API services. The Web API controllers call the service layer which calls the data layer.
I am planning to use Entity Framework along with Dapper. It might not be a good solution to use both of them together, but I need both. I need EF as it is easier to use and developers in my team are familiar. I need Dapper for performance. So, it will be a mix depending on where the dapper can make significant impact and where we can compromise on being a little late.
When using EF, I wanted to use unit of work with repository for each entity. My repository will be like
public class StudentRepository : IStudentRepository, IDisposable
{
private SchoolContext context;
public StudentRepository(SchoolContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public IEnumerable<Student> GetStudents()
{
return context.Students.ToList();
}
}
I took that sample code from http://www.asp.net/mvc/overview/older-versions/getting-started-with-ef-5-using-mvc-4/implementing-the-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application
So, now I wanted to introduce Dapper.
Approach 1: Initially I thought of having multiple repositories for Dapper and for Entity Framework and I can register the one which I need in my dependency injection container. But in this case, all the methods from IStudentRepository interface needs to be implemented in both the EF and Dapper concrete repository classes (if I could do this in Dapper completely, then I don't need EF at all).
Approach 2 : Then I thought about a more ugly approach and it is like exposing a property of IDbConnection along with the DbContext property (in this case SchoolContext) in the above StudentRepository class.
So the example would be like
public class StudentRepository : IStudentRepository, IDisposable
{
private SchoolContext context;
private IDbConnection Db;
public StudentRepository(SchoolContext context)
{
this.context = context;
this.db = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["conn"].ConnectionString);
}
public IEnumerable<Student> GetStudents()
{
return context.Students.ToList();
}
public IEnumerable<Student> GetStudentsBasedOnSomeComplexCondition()
{
//I can use the db property here and work with dapper in this case.
}
(The inclusion of the IDbConnection property can be done through an abstract class so as not to repeat the instantiation code of this property and to easily change the connection string in case if needed. I am adding it in the same class for simplicity).
Approach 3 : Now, I thought of separating it further which I again think is an ugly way. Along with StudentRepository which has only EF stuff (like the first example), I will have another concrete class called StudentDapperRepository which inherits from StudentRepository.
All the methods in StudentRepository will be changed to virtual. So, I will be using StudentDapperRepository for my actual data layer and this will have the Dapper implementations where needed and where not needed, it will use the base class StudentRepository methods (which is in EF).
I think all my solutions are ugly and adding more complexity and confusion. So, can I have some light into how I can do this.

Multiple DbContext classes use the same connection string?

For example, I have following DbContext classes.
public class AppDbContext : DbContext {
...
}
public class LogDbContext : DbContext {
...
}
public class FooDbContext : DbContext {
...
}
If a connection string named AppDbContext is on the App.Config and I want other DbContext classes to share the same connection string as AppDbContext, could I just pass the string "AppDbContext" as the parameter for the ctor of LogDbContext and FooDbContext. For example,
public class FooDbContext : DbContext {
public FooDbContext : base("AppDbContext") { }
}
Does it have any side effects ?
Update 2013/1/9
After trying #ShinH2S's suggestion and somethings, I give up this way, and decide give different Dbcontext derived classes with different connectionStrings and database. I have try a test project and put it on GitHub. It will throw a runtime exception when the entityframework detects the database scheme is changed because the AppDbContext and FooDbContext have different schemas. If I assign a DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges strategy to both DbContext derived classes, one of them will be dropped because the models is different to another.
Update 2017/10
This is an old problem. In my memory, EF6 and above versions can have different migration history for multiple context in the same migration table.
I prefer this answer at SO. I had not been coding with C# about 2 years.
IMHO, there is no side effects. But if it was me I will just create a base class that inherits from DbContext class BaseDbContextthen all the contexts (AppDbContext, LogDbContext and FooDbContext ) will derive from BaseDbContext.

Differences between .CreateObjectSet<T>, .Set<T>, and .CreateQuery<T>?

I am writing a generic repository for entity framework and am confused as to what the difference between these calls are:
ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<T>
ObjectContext.CreateQuery<T>
DbContext.Set<T>
I want a generic repository that both supports context generated from .edmx files as well as code first DbContext, so I've got this:
public abstract class EntityRepository<TClass>
where TClass : class, new()
{
//private readonly TContext _context;
private readonly ObjectSet<TClass> _objectSet;
protected EntityRepository(IObjectContextAdapter context)
{
_objectSet = context.ObjectContext.CreateObjectSet<TClass>();
}
protected EntityRepository(ObjectContext context)
{
_objectSet = context.CreateObjectSet<TClass>();
}
public ObjectSet<TClass> Query()
{
return _objectSet;
}
}
In the examples I have seen online I've seen all 3 used, what is the actual differences between them? Is one better performance wise? I know you can write LINQ queries against the contexts using all 3 methods.
The CreateObjectSet<T> returns you ObjectSet<T> that's basically collection of T objects, with ability to add, remove, ... object from this collections resulting later to inserts, deletes, ... You can also use it for querying. It's like a top level root for given entity.
The CreateQuery<T> gives you ObjectQuery<T>, which can be viewed like IEnumerable<T> (it's also IQueryable<T>). This object is like subset of ObjectSet<T> (some conditions etc.), but you can't add items to it and so on.
And finally the Set<T> returns DbSet<T> that's simplified version of first method/object for Code First. It's easier to, for instance, to use these objects (or better to say interfaces; IDbSet<T>) for i.e. unit testing etc. Similar to what ObjectContext and DbContext is.
In addition to what Jiri already explained, there is an overload of CreateObjectSet that takes no arguments. This overload will automatically assume that it has to return the ObjectSet for the only EntitySet associated with TEntity. It will throw if the model has MEST (multiple-entity-sets-per-type). All overloads of CreateQuery need an Entity SQL string to bootstrap the query (note that the name of an EntitySet is a valid Entity SQL query).