Using ASP.NET Core 2.2 with EF Core, I have followed various guides in trying to implement the automatic creation of date/time values when creating either a new record or editing/updating an existing one.
The current result is when i initially create a new record, the CreatedDate & UpdatedDate column will be populated with the current date/time.
However first time I edit this same record, the UpdatedDate column is then given a new date/time value (as expected) BUT for some reason, EF Core is wiping out the value of the original CreatedDate which results in SQL assigning a default value.
Required result I need as follows:
Step 1: New row created, both CreatedDate & UpdatedDate column is given a date/time value (this already works)
Step 2: When editing and saving an existing row, I want EF Core to update the UpdatedDate column with the updated date/time only, BUT leave the other CreatedDate column unmodified with the original creation date.
I'm using EF Core code first, and do no want to go down the fluent API route.
One of the guides i was partially following is https://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/faq/set-created-and-modified-date-in-efcore.aspx but neither this or other solutions I've tried is giving the result I am after.
Baseclass:
public class BaseEntity
{
public DateTime? CreatedDate { get; set; }
public DateTime? UpdatedDate { get; set; }
}
DbContext Class:
public override Task<int> SaveChangesAsync(bool acceptAllChangesOnSuccess, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default(CancellationToken))
{
var entries = ChangeTracker.Entries().Where(E => E.State == EntityState.Added || E.State == EntityState.Modified).ToList();
foreach (var entityEntry in entries)
{
if (entityEntry.State == EntityState.Modified)
{
entityEntry.Property("UpdatedDate").CurrentValue = DateTime.Now;
}
else if (entityEntry.State == EntityState.Added)
{
entityEntry.Property("CreatedDate").CurrentValue = DateTime.Now;
entityEntry.Property("UpdatedDate").CurrentValue = DateTime.Now;
}
}
return base.SaveChangesAsync(acceptAllChangesOnSuccess, cancellationToken);
}
UPDATE FOLLOWING ADVICE FROM STEVE IN COMMENTS BELOW
I spent a bit more time debugging today, turns out the methods I posted above are appear to be functioning as expected i.e. when editing an existing row and saving it, only the entityEntry.State == EntityState.Modified IF statement is being called. So what I'm finding is that after saving the entity, the CreatedDate column is being overwitten with a Null value, I can see this by watching the SQL explorer after a refresh. I believe the issue is along the lines of what Steve mentions below "If it is #null then this might also explain the behavior in that it is not being loaded with the entity for whatever reason."
But i'm a little lost in tracing where this CreatedDate value is being dropped somewhere through edit/save process.
Image below shows the result at the point just before the entity is saved following an update. In the debugger I'm not quite sure where to find the entry of the CreatedDate to see what value is held at this step, but it appears to be missing from the debugger list so wandering whether somehow it doesn't know about the existence of this field when saving.
Below is the method I have in my form 'Edit' Razor page model class:
public class EditModel : PageModel
{
private readonly MyProject.Data.ApplicationDbContext _context;
public EditModel(MyProject.Data.ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
[BindProperty]
public RuleParameters RuleParameters { get; set; }
public async Task<IActionResult> OnGetAsync(int? id)
{
if (id == null)
{
return NotFound();
}
RuleParameters = await _context.RuleParameters
.Include(r => r.SystemMapping).FirstOrDefaultAsync(m => m.ID == id);
if (RuleParameters == null)
{
return NotFound();
}
ViewData["SystemMappingID"] = new SelectList(_context.SystemMapping, "ID", "MappingName");
return Page();
}
public async Task<IActionResult> OnPostAsync()
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return Page();
}
_context.Attach(RuleParameters).State = EntityState.Modified;
try
{
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
catch (DbUpdateConcurrencyException)
{
if (!RuleParametersExists(RuleParameters.ID))
{
return NotFound();
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
return RedirectToPage("./Index");
}
private bool RuleParametersExists(int id)
{
return _context.RuleParameters.Any(e => e.ID == id);
}
}
Possibly one of the reasons for this issue is the fact that I have not included the CreatedDate field in my Edit Razor Page form, so when I update the entity which in turn will run the PostAsync method server side, there is no value stored for the CreatedDate field and therefore nothing in the bag by the tine the savechangesasync method is called in my DbContext Class. But I also didn't think this was necessary? otherwise I'd struggle to see what value there is in the this process of using an inherited BaseEntity class i.e. not having to manually add the CreatedDate & UpdatedDate attribute to every model class where I want to use it...
It may be easier to just give your BaseEntity a constructor:
public BaseEntity()
{
UpdatedDate = DateTime.Now;
CreatedDate = CreatedDate ?? UpdatedDate;
}
Then you can have your DbContext override SaveChangesAsync like:
public override Task<int> SaveChangesAsync(
bool acceptAllChangesOnSuccess,
CancellationToken token = default)
{
foreach (var entity in ChangeTracker
.Entries()
.Where(x => x.Entity is BaseEntity && x.State == EntityState.Modified)
.Select(x => x.Entity)
.Cast<BaseEntity>())
{
entity.UpdatedDate = DateTime.Now;
}
return base.SaveChangesAsync(acceptAllChangesOnSuccess, token);
}
Possibly one of the reasons for this issue is the fact that I have not included the CreatedDate field in my Edit Razor Page form, so when I update the entity which in turn will run the PostAsync method server side, there is no value stored for the CreatedDate field and therefore nothing in the bag by the tine the savechangesasync method is called in my DbContext Class.
That's true.Your post data does not contains the original CreatedDate,so when save to database, it is null and could not know what the exact value unless you assign it before saving.It is necessary.
You could just add below code in your razor form.
<input type="hidden" asp-for="CreatedDate" />
Update:
To overcome it in server-side,you could assign data manually:
public async Task<IActionResult> OnPostAsync()
{
RuleParameters originalData = await _context.RuleParameters.FirstOrDefaultAsync(m => m.ID == RuleParameters.ID);
RuleParameters.CreatedDate = originalData.CreatedDate;
_context.Attach(RuleParameters).State = EntityState.Modified;
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
I don't suspect EF is doing this, but rather your database, or you're inadvertently inserting records instead of updating them.
A simple test: Put break-points in your SaveChangesAsnc method within both the Modified and Added handlers and then run a unit test that loads an entity, edits it, and saves. Which breakpoint is hit? If the behavior seems to be normal with a simple unit test, repeat again with your code.
If the Modified breakpoint is hit, and only the Modified handler is hit then check the state of the CreatedDate value in the entity modified. Does it still reflect the original CreatedDate? If yes, then it would appear that something in your schema will be overwriting it on save. If no then you have a bug in your code that has caused it to update. If it is #null then this might also explain the behaviour in that it is not being loaded with the entity for whatever reason. Check that the property has not been configured as something like a Computed property.
If the Added breakpoint is hit at all, then this would point at a scenario where you're dealing with a detached entity, such as an entity that was read from a different DB Context and being associated to another entity in the current DB Context and saved as a byproduct. When a DbContext encounters an entity that was loaded and disassociated with a different DbContext, it will treat that entity as a completely new entity and insert a new record. The biggest single culprit for this is invariably MVC code where people pass entities to/from views. Entity references are loaded in one request, serialized to the view, and then passed back on another request. Devs assume they are receiving an entity that they can just associate to a new entity and save, but the Context of this request doesn't know about that entity, and that "entity" isn't actually an entity, it is now a POCO shell of data that the serializer created. It's no different to you newing up a new class and populating fields. EF won't know the difference. The result of this is you will trip the Added condition for your entity, and after completion you will have a duplicate record. (with different PK if EF is configured to treat PKs as Identity)
So an example is an Order screen: When presenting a screen to create a new order I may have loaded the Customer and passed that to the view to display customer information and will want to associate to the new order:
var customer = context.Customers.Single(x => x.CustomerId == 15);
var newOrder = new Order { Customer = customer };
return View(newOrder);
This looks innocent enough. When we go to save the new order after setting their details:
public ActionResult Save(Order newOrder)
{
context.Orders.Add(newOrder);
newOrder.Customer.Orders.Add(newOrder);
context.SaveChanges();
// ...
}
newOrder had a reference to Customer #14, so all looks good. We're even associating the new order to the customer's order collection. We might even want to have updated fields on the customer record to reflect a change to the Modified date. However, newOrder in this case, and all associated data including .Customer are plain 'ol C# objects at this point. We've added the new order to the Context, but as far as the context is concerned, the Customer referenced is also a new record. It will ignore the Customer ID if that is set as an Identity column and it will save a brand new Customer record (ID #15 for example) with all of the same details as Customer ID 14 and associate that to the new order. It can be subtle and easy to miss until you start querying Customers and spotting duplicate looking rows.
If you are passing entities to/from views, I'd be very wary of this gotcha. Attaching and setting modified state is one option, but that involves trusting that the data has not been tampered with. As a general rule, calls to update entities should never pass entities & attach them, but rather re-load those entities, validate row version, validate the data coming in, and only copy across fields you expect should ever be modified before saving the entity associated to the DbContext.
Hopefully that gives you a few ideas on things to check to get to the bottom of the issue.
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 am getting this error when I GetById() on an entity and then set the collection of child entities to my new list which comes from the MVC view.
The operation failed: The
relationship could not be changed
because one or more of the foreign-key
properties is non-nullable. When a
change is made to a relationship, the
related foreign-key property is set to
a null value. If the foreign-key does
not support null values, a new
relationship must be defined, the
foreign-key property must be assigned
another non-null value, or the
unrelated object must be deleted.
I don't quite understand this line:
The relationship could not be changed
because one or more of the foreign-key
properties is non-nullable.
Why would I change the relationship between 2 entities? It should remain the same throughout the lifetime of the whole application.
The code the exception occurs on is simple assigning modified child classes in a collection to the existing parent class. This would hopefully cater for removal of child classes, addition of new ones and modifications. I would have thought Entity Framework handles this.
The lines of code can be distilled to:
var thisParent = _repo.GetById(1);
thisParent.ChildItems = modifiedParent.ChildItems();
_repo.Save();
You should delete old child items thisParent.ChildItems one by one manually. Entity Framework doesn't do that for you. It finally cannot decide what you want to do with the old child items - if you want to throw them away or if you want to keep and assign them to other parent entities. You must tell Entity Framework your decision. But one of these two decisions you HAVE to make since the child entities cannot live alone without a reference to any parent in the database (due to the foreign key constraint). That's basically what the exception says.
Edit
What I would do if child items could be added, updated and deleted:
public void UpdateEntity(ParentItem parent)
{
// Load original parent including the child item collection
var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
.Where(p => p.ID == parent.ID)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems)
.SingleOrDefault();
// We assume that the parent is still in the DB and don't check for null
// Update scalar properties of parent,
// can be omitted if we don't expect changes of the scalar properties
var parentEntry = _dbContext.Entry(originalParent);
parentEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(parent);
foreach (var childItem in parent.ChildItems)
{
var originalChildItem = originalParent.ChildItems
.Where(c => c.ID == childItem.ID && c.ID != 0)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Is original child item with same ID in DB?
if (originalChildItem != null)
{
// Yes -> Update scalar properties of child item
var childEntry = _dbContext.Entry(originalChildItem);
childEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(childItem);
}
else
{
// No -> It's a new child item -> Insert
childItem.ID = 0;
originalParent.ChildItems.Add(childItem);
}
}
// Don't consider the child items we have just added above.
// (We need to make a copy of the list by using .ToList() because
// _dbContext.ChildItems.Remove in this loop does not only delete
// from the context but also from the child collection. Without making
// the copy we would modify the collection we are just interating
// through - which is forbidden and would lead to an exception.)
foreach (var originalChildItem in
originalParent.ChildItems.Where(c => c.ID != 0).ToList())
{
// Are there child items in the DB which are NOT in the
// new child item collection anymore?
if (!parent.ChildItems.Any(c => c.ID == originalChildItem.ID))
// Yes -> It's a deleted child item -> Delete
_dbContext.ChildItems.Remove(originalChildItem);
}
_dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
Note: This is not tested. It's assuming that the child item collection is of type ICollection. (I usually have IList and then the code looks a bit different.) I've also stripped away all repository abstractions to keep it simple.
I don't know if that is a good solution, but I believe that some kind of hard work along these lines must be done to take care of all kinds of changes in the navigation collection. I would also be happy to see an easier way of doing it.
The reason you're facing this is due to the difference between composition and aggregation.
In composition, the child object is created when the parent is created and is destroyed when its parent is destroyed. So its lifetime is controlled by its parent. e.g. A blog post and its comments. If a post is deleted, its comments should be deleted. It doesn't make sense to have comments for a post that doesn't exist. Same for orders and order items.
In aggregation, the child object can exist irrespective of its parent. If the parent is destroyed, the child object can still exist, as it may be added to a different parent later. e.g.: the relationship between a playlist and the songs in that playlist. If the playlist is deleted, the songs shouldn't be deleted. They may be added to a different playlist.
The way Entity Framework differentiates aggregation and composition relationships is as follows:
For composition: it expects the child object to a have a composite primary key (ParentID, ChildID). This is by design as the IDs of the children should be within the scope of their parents.
For aggregation: it expects the foreign key property in the child object to be nullable.
So, the reason you're having this issue is because of how you've set your primary key in your child table. It should be composite, but it's not. So, Entity Framework sees this association as aggregation, which means, when you remove or clear the child objects, it's not going to delete the child records. It'll simply remove the association and sets the corresponding foreign key column to NULL (so those child records can later be associated with a different parent). Since your column does not allow NULL, you get the exception you mentioned.
Solutions:
1- If you have a strong reason for not wanting to use a composite key, you need to delete the child objects explicitly. And this can be done simpler than the solutions suggested earlier:
context.Children.RemoveRange(parent.Children);
2- Otherwise, by setting the proper primary key on your child table, your code will look more meaningful:
parent.Children.Clear();
This is a very big problem. What actually happens in your code is this:
You load Parent from the database and get an attached entity
You replace its child collection with new collection of detached children
You save changes but during this operation all children are considered as added becasue EF didn't know about them till this time. So EF tries to set null to foreign key of old children and insert all new children => duplicate rows.
Now the solution really depends on what you want to do and how would you like to do it?
If you are using ASP.NET MVC you can try to use UpdateModel or TryUpdateModel.
If you want just update existing children manually, you can simply do something like:
foreach (var child in modifiedParent.ChildItems)
{
context.Childs.Attach(child);
context.Entry(child).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
context.SaveChanges();
Attaching is actually not needed (setting the state to Modified will also attach the entity) but I like it because it makes the process more obvious.
If you want to modify existing, delete existing and insert new childs you must do something like:
var parent = context.Parents.GetById(1); // Make sure that childs are loaded as well
foreach(var child in modifiedParent.ChildItems)
{
var attachedChild = FindChild(parent, child.Id);
if (attachedChild != null)
{
// Existing child - apply new values
context.Entry(attachedChild).CurrentValues.SetValues(child);
}
else
{
// New child
// Don't insert original object. It will attach whole detached graph
parent.ChildItems.Add(child.Clone());
}
}
// Now you must delete all entities present in parent.ChildItems but missing
// in modifiedParent.ChildItems
// ToList should make copy of the collection because we can't modify collection
// iterated by foreach
foreach(var child in parent.ChildItems.ToList())
{
var detachedChild = FindChild(modifiedParent, child.Id);
if (detachedChild == null)
{
parent.ChildItems.Remove(child);
context.Childs.Remove(child);
}
}
context.SaveChanges();
I found this answer much more helpful for the same error.
It seems that EF does not like it when you Remove, it prefers Delete.
You can delete a collection of records attached to a record like this.
order.OrderDetails.ToList().ForEach(s => db.Entry(s).State = EntityState.Deleted);
In the example, all of the Detail records attached to an Order have their State set to Delete. (In preparation to Add back updated Details, as part of an Order update)
I've no idea why the other two answers are so popular!
I believe you were right in assuming the ORM framework should handle it - after all, that is what it promises to deliver. Otherwise your domain model gets corrupted by persistence concerns. NHibernate manages this happily if you setup the cascade settings correctly. In Entity Framework it is also possible, they just expect you to follow better standards when setting up your database model, especially when they have to infer what cascading should be done:
You have to define the parent - child relationship correctly by using an "identifying relationship".
If you do this, Entity Framework knows the child object is identified by the parent, and therefore it must be a "cascade-delete-orphans" situation.
Other than the above, you might need to (from NHibernate experience)
thisParent.ChildItems.Clear();
thisParent.ChildItems.AddRange(modifiedParent.ChildItems);
instead of replacing the list entirely.
UPDATE
#Slauma's comment reminded me that detached entities are another part of the overall problem. To solve that, you can take the approach of using a custom model binder that constructs your models by attempting to load it from the context. This blog post shows an example of what I mean.
If you are using AutoMapper with Entity Framework on the same class, you might hit this problem. For instance if your class is
class A
{
public ClassB ClassB { get; set; }
public int ClassBId { get; set; }
}
AutoMapper.Map<A, A>(input, destination);
This will try to copy both properties. In this case, ClassBId is non Nullable. Since AutoMapper will copy destination.ClassB = input.ClassB; this will cause a problem.
Set your AutoMapper to Ignore ClassB property.
cfg.CreateMap<A, A>()
.ForMember(m => m.ClassB, opt => opt.Ignore()); // We use the ClassBId
I had same problem, but I knew it had worked OK in other cases, so I reduced the problem to this:
parent.OtherRelatedItems.Clear(); //this worked OK on SaveChanges() - items were being deleted from DB
parent.ProblematicItems.Clear(); // this was causing the mentioned exception on SaveChanges()
OtherRelatedItems had a composite Primary Key (parentId + some local column) and worked OK
ProblematicItems had their own single-column Primary Key, and the parentId was only a FK. This was causing the exception after Clear().
All I had to do was to make the ParentId a part of composite PK to indicate that the children can't exist without a parent. I used DB-first model, added the PK and marked the parentId column as EntityKey (so, I had to update it both in DB and EF - not sure if EF alone would be enough).
Once you think about it, it's a very elegant distinction that EF uses to decide if children "make sense" without a parent (in this case Clear() won't delete them and throw exception unless you set the ParentId to something else/special), or - like in the original question - we expect the items to be deleted once they are removed from the parent.
I just had the same error.
I have two tables with a parent child relationship, but I configured a "on delete cascade" on the foreign key column in the table definition of the child table.
So when I manually delete the parent row (via SQL) in the database it will automatically delete the child rows.
However this did not work in EF, the error described in this thread showed up.
The reason for this was, that in my entity data model (edmx file) the properties of the association between the parent and the child table were not correct.
The End1 OnDelete option was configured to be none ("End1" in my model is the end which has a multiplicity of 1).
I manually changed the End1 OnDelete option to Cascade and than it worked.
I do not know why EF is not able to pick this up, when I update the model from the database (I have a database first model).
For completeness, this is how my code to delete looks like:
public void Delete(int id)
{
MyType myObject = _context.MyTypes.Find(id);
_context.MyTypes.Remove(myObject);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
If I hadn´t a cascade delete defined, I would have to delete the child rows manually before deleting the parent row.
This happens because the Child Entity is marked as Modified instead of Deleted.
And the modification that EF does to the Child Entity when parent.Remove(child) is executed, is simply setting the reference to its parent to null.
You can check the child's EntityState by typing the following code into Visual Studio's Immediate Window when the exception occurs, after executing SaveChanges():
_context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries(System.Data.EntityState.Modified).ElementAt(X).Entity
where X should be replaced by the deleted Entity.
If you don't have access to the ObjectContext to execute _context.ChildEntity.Remove(child), you can solve this issue by making the foreign key a part of the primary key on the child table.
Parent
________________
| PK IdParent |
| Name |
|________________|
Child
________________
| PK IdChild |
| PK,FK IdParent |
| Name |
|________________|
This way, if you execute parent.Remove(child), EF will correctly mark the Entity as Deleted.
This type of solution did the trick for me:
Parent original = db.Parent.SingleOrDefault<Parent>(t => t.ID == updated.ID);
db.Childs.RemoveRange(original.Childs);
updated.Childs.ToList().ForEach(c => original.Childs.Add(c));
db.Entry<Parent>(original).CurrentValues.SetValues(updated);
Its important to say that this deletes all the records and insert them again.
But for my case (less then 10) it´s ok.
I hope it helps.
I ran into this problem today and wanted to share my solution. In my case, the solution was to delete the Child items before getting the Parent from the database.
Previously I was doing it like in the code below. I will then get the same error listed in this question.
var Parent = GetParent(parentId);
var children = Parent.Children;
foreach (var c in children )
{
Context.Children.Remove(c);
}
Context.SaveChanges();
What worked for me, is to get the children items first, using the parentId (foreign key) and then delete those items. Then I can get the Parent from the database and at that point, it should not have any children items anymore and I can add new children items.
var children = GetChildren(parentId);
foreach (var c in children )
{
Context.Children.Remove(c);
}
Context.SaveChanges();
var Parent = GetParent(parentId);
Parent.Children = //assign new entities/items here
You must manually clear the ChildItems collection and append new items into it:
thisParent.ChildItems.Clear();
thisParent.ChildItems.AddRange(modifiedParent.ChildItems);
After that you can call DeleteOrphans extension method which will handle with orphaned entities (it must be called between DetectChanges and SaveChanges methods).
public static class DbContextExtensions
{
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary< EntityType, ReadOnlyDictionary< string, NavigationProperty>> s_navPropMappings = new ConcurrentDictionary< EntityType, ReadOnlyDictionary< string, NavigationProperty>>();
public static void DeleteOrphans( this DbContext source )
{
var context = ((IObjectContextAdapter)source).ObjectContext;
foreach (var entry in context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries(EntityState.Modified))
{
var entityType = entry.EntitySet.ElementType as EntityType;
if (entityType == null)
continue;
var navPropMap = s_navPropMappings.GetOrAdd(entityType, CreateNavigationPropertyMap);
var props = entry.GetModifiedProperties().ToArray();
foreach (var prop in props)
{
NavigationProperty navProp;
if (!navPropMap.TryGetValue(prop, out navProp))
continue;
var related = entry.RelationshipManager.GetRelatedEnd(navProp.RelationshipType.FullName, navProp.ToEndMember.Name);
var enumerator = related.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext() && enumerator.Current != null)
continue;
entry.Delete();
break;
}
}
}
private static ReadOnlyDictionary<string, NavigationProperty> CreateNavigationPropertyMap( EntityType type )
{
var result = type.NavigationProperties
.Where(v => v.FromEndMember.RelationshipMultiplicity == RelationshipMultiplicity.Many)
.Where(v => v.ToEndMember.RelationshipMultiplicity == RelationshipMultiplicity.One || (v.ToEndMember.RelationshipMultiplicity == RelationshipMultiplicity.ZeroOrOne && v.FromEndMember.GetEntityType() == v.ToEndMember.GetEntityType()))
.Select(v => new { NavigationProperty = v, DependentProperties = v.GetDependentProperties().Take(2).ToArray() })
.Where(v => v.DependentProperties.Length == 1)
.ToDictionary(v => v.DependentProperties[0].Name, v => v.NavigationProperty);
return new ReadOnlyDictionary<string, NavigationProperty>(result);
}
}
I've tried these solutions and many others, but none of them quite worked out. Since this is the first answer on google, I'll add my solution here.
The method that worked well for me was to take relationships out of the picture during commits, so there was nothing for EF to screw up. I did this by re-finding the parent object in the DBContext, and deleting that. Since the re-found object's navigation properties are all null, the childrens' relationships are ignored during the commit.
var toDelete = db.Parents.Find(parentObject.ID);
db.Parents.Remove(toDelete);
db.SaveChanges();
Note that this assumes the foreign keys are setup with ON DELETE CASCADE, so when the parent row is removed, the children will be cleaned up by the database.
I used Mosh's solution, but it was not obvious to me how to implement the composition key correctly in code first.
So here is the solution:
public class Holiday
{
[Key, Column(Order = 0), DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int HolidayId { get; set; }
[Key, Column(Order = 1), ForeignKey("Location")]
public LocationEnum LocationId { get; set; }
public virtual Location Location { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
If you are using Auto mapper and facing the the issue following is the good solution, it work for me
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/576393/Solutionplusto-aplus-Theplusoperationplusfailed
Since the problem is that we're mapping null navigation properties, and we actually don't need them to be updated on the Entity since they didn't changed on the Contract, we need to ignore them on the mapping definition:
ForMember(dest => dest.RefundType, opt => opt.Ignore())
So my code ended up like this:
Mapper.CreateMap<MyDataContract, MyEntity>
ForMember(dest => dest.NavigationProperty1, opt => opt.Ignore())
ForMember(dest => dest.NavigationProperty2, opt => opt.Ignore())
.IgnoreAllNonExisting();
This issue arise because we try to delete the parent table still child table data is present.
We solve the problem with help of cascade delete.
In model Create method in dbcontext class.
modelBuilder.Entity<Job>()
.HasMany<JobSportsMapping>(C => C.JobSportsMappings)
.WithRequired(C => C.Job)
.HasForeignKey(C => C.JobId).WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
modelBuilder.Entity<Sport>()
.HasMany<JobSportsMapping>(C => C.JobSportsMappings)
.WithRequired(C => C.Sport)
.HasForeignKey(C => C.SportId).WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
After that,In our API Call
var JobList = Context.Job
.Include(x => x.JobSportsMappings) .ToList();
Context.Job.RemoveRange(JobList);
Context.SaveChanges();
Cascade delete option delete the parent as well parent related child table with this simple code. Make it try in this simple way.
Remove Range which used for delete the list of records in the database
Thanks
I also solved my problem with Mosh's answer and I thought PeterB's answer was a bit of since it used an enum as foreign key. Remember that you will need to add a new migration after adding this code.
I can also recommend this blog post for other solutions:
http://www.kianryan.co.uk/2013/03/orphaned-child/
Code:
public class Child
{
[Key, Column(Order = 0), DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Heading { get; set; }
//Add other properties here.
[Key, Column(Order = 1)]
public int ParentId { get; set; }
public virtual Parent Parent { get; set; }
}
Using the solution of Slauma, I created some generic functions to help update child objects and collections of child objects.
All my persistent objects implement this interface
/// <summary>
/// Base interface for all persisted entries
/// </summary>
public interface IBase
{
/// <summary>
/// The Id
/// </summary>
int Id { get; set; }
}
With this I implemented these two functions in my Repository
/// <summary>
/// Check if orgEntry is set update it's values, otherwise add it
/// </summary>
/// <param name="set">The collection</param>
/// <param name="entry">The entry</param>
/// <param name="orgEntry">The original entry found in the database (can be <code>null</code> is this is a new entry)</param>
/// <returns>The added or updated entry</returns>
public T AddOrUpdateEntry<T>(DbSet<T> set, T entry, T orgEntry) where T : class, IBase
{
if (entry.Id == 0 || orgEntry == null)
{
entry.Id = 0;
return set.Add(entry);
}
else
{
Context.Entry(orgEntry).CurrentValues.SetValues(entry);
return orgEntry;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// check if each entry of the new list was in the orginal list, if found, update it, if not found add it
/// all entries found in the orignal list that are not in the new list are removed
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of entry</typeparam>
/// <param name="set">The database set</param>
/// <param name="newList">The new list</param>
/// <param name="orgList">The original list</param>
public void AddOrUpdateCollection<T>(DbSet<T> set, ICollection<T> newList, ICollection<T> orgList) where T : class, IBase
{
// attach or update all entries in the new list
foreach (T entry in newList)
{
// Find out if we had the entry already in the list
var orgEntry = orgList.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id != 0 && e.Id == entry.Id);
AddOrUpdateEntry(set, entry, orgEntry);
}
// Remove all entries from the original list that are no longer in the new list
foreach (T orgEntry in orgList.Where(e => e.Id != 0).ToList())
{
if (!newList.Any(e => e.Id == orgEntry.Id))
{
set.Remove(orgEntry);
}
}
}
To use it i do the following:
var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
.Where(p => p.Id == parent.Id)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems2)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Add the parent (including collections) to the context or update it's values (except the collections)
originalParent = AddOrUpdateEntry(_dbContext.ParentItems, parent, originalParent);
// Update each collection
AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems, parent.ChildItems, orgiginalParent.ChildItems);
AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems2, parent.ChildItems2, orgiginalParent.ChildItems2);
Hope this helps
EXTRA: You could also make a seperate DbContextExtentions (or your own context inferface) class:
public static void DbContextExtentions {
/// <summary>
/// Check if orgEntry is set update it's values, otherwise add it
/// </summary>
/// <param name="_dbContext">The context object</param>
/// <param name="set">The collection</param>
/// <param name="entry">The entry</param>
/// <param name="orgEntry">The original entry found in the database (can be <code>null</code> is this is a new entry)</param>
/// <returns>The added or updated entry</returns>
public static T AddOrUpdateEntry<T>(this DbContext _dbContext, DbSet<T> set, T entry, T orgEntry) where T : class, IBase
{
if (entry.IsNew || orgEntry == null) // New or not found in context
{
entry.Id = 0;
return set.Add(entry);
}
else
{
_dbContext.Entry(orgEntry).CurrentValues.SetValues(entry);
return orgEntry;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// check if each entry of the new list was in the orginal list, if found, update it, if not found add it
/// all entries found in the orignal list that are not in the new list are removed
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of entry</typeparam>
/// <param name="_dbContext">The context object</param>
/// <param name="set">The database set</param>
/// <param name="newList">The new list</param>
/// <param name="orgList">The original list</param>
public static void AddOrUpdateCollection<T>(this DbContext _dbContext, DbSet<T> set, ICollection<T> newList, ICollection<T> orgList) where T : class, IBase
{
// attach or update all entries in the new list
foreach (T entry in newList)
{
// Find out if we had the entry already in the list
var orgEntry = orgList.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id != 0 && e.Id == entry.Id);
AddOrUpdateEntry(_dbContext, set, entry, orgEntry);
}
// Remove all entries from the original list that are no longer in the new list
foreach (T orgEntry in orgList.Where(e => e.Id != 0).ToList())
{
if (!newList.Any(e => e.Id == orgEntry.Id))
{
set.Remove(orgEntry);
}
}
}
}
and use it like:
var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
.Where(p => p.Id == parent.Id)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems2)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Add the parent (including collections) to the context or update it's values (except the collections)
originalParent = _dbContext.AddOrUpdateEntry(_dbContext.ParentItems, parent, originalParent);
// Update each collection
_dbContext.AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems, parent.ChildItems, orgiginalParent.ChildItems);
_dbContext.AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems2, parent.ChildItems2, orgiginalParent.ChildItems2);
I was face same problem when I am going to delete my record than some issue was occur , for this issue solution is that when you are going to delete your record than you missing some thing before deleting header/master record you must write to code for delete its detail before header/Master I hope you issue will be resolve.
I had the same issue when I was trying to modify the scalar property of the targeted entity and realized I have accidentally referenced the target entity's parent:
entity.GetDbContextFromEntity().Entry(entity).Reference(i => i.ParentEntity).Query().Where(p => p.ID == 1).Load();
Just an advice by making sure the target entity does not reference any parent.
I've met this problem before several hours and try everything, but in my case the solution was diferent from the listed above.
If you use already retrieved entity from the database and try to modify it's childrens the error will occure, but if you get fresh copy of the entity from the database there should not be any problems.
Do not use this:
public void CheckUsersCount(CompanyProduct companyProduct)
{
companyProduct.Name = "Test";
}
Use this:
public void CheckUsersCount(Guid companyProductId)
{
CompanyProduct companyProduct = CompanyProductManager.Get(companyProductId);
companyProduct.Name = "Test";
}