To say I had proxy class and Lazyloading both disabled. and I two objects with a many to many relation. When coming to delete a record, I had the codes:
public void DeleteUser(List<int> ids)
{
using (var dbContext = new AccountDbContext())
{
dbContext.Users.Include("Roles").Where(u => ids.Contains(u.ID)).ToList().ForEach(a => {
//a.Roles.Clear();
//dbContext.Users.Remove(a);
dbContext.Delete(a);
});
dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
It looks like dbContext.Delete(user) will delete the Roles related to the user[which in the database a many to many record is deleted ]. As I thought cascade delete is enabled. So can I say user.Roles.Clear(); is totally unnecessary here? And when should I implement a Clear method?
Related
I have two entities. File and Binary. File contains file metadata and Binary contains file content. I want Binary instance be deleted when I remove File instance. I use the following:
public partial class MyEntities : Entities
{
public override int SaveChanges()
{
foreach (var entry in ChangeTracker.Entries<File>().Where(e => e.State == EntityState.Deleted))
{
entry.Reference<Binary>(i => i.FileBinary).EntityEntry.State = EntityState.Deleted;
}
return base.SaveChanges();
}
}
This code does not work. I mean Binary instance is not deleted and also there is no error. Can anyone tell the reason or a better way to do that?
Thanks
You must add more details of your code, like your EF type(code first,model first,schema first) and etc. however if there is a relation between these two entities you can see this(it seems your entities are related, so if there is not relationship you can add it):
code first:
Entity Framework: Delete Object and its related entities
model first and schema first:
Cascading deletes
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));
}
}
I have created a model POCO class called Recipe; a corresponding RecipeRepository persists these objects. I am using Code First on top of an existing database.
Every Recipe contains an ICollection<RecipeCategory> of categories that link the Recipes and the Categories table in a many-to-many relationship. RecipeCategory contains the corresponding two foreign keys.
A simplified version of my controller and repository logic looks like this (I have commented out all checks for authorization, null objects etc. for simplicity):
public ActionResult Delete(int id)
{
_recipeRepository.Remove(id);
return View("Deleted");
}
The repository's Remove method does nothing but the following:
public void Remove(int id)
{
Recipe recipe = _context.Recipes.Find(id);
_context.Recipes.Remove(recipe);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
Howevery, the code above does not work since I receive a System.InvalidOperationException every time I run it: Adding a relationship with an entity which is in the Deleted state is not allowed.
What does the error message stand for and how can I solve the problem? The only thing I try to achieve is deleting an entity.
#Ladislav: I have replaced ICollection<RecipeCategory> by ICollection<Category>. Accidentially, ReSharper refactored away the virtual keyword.
However, the problem remains — I cannot delete a Category from a Recipe entity. The following code does not persist the deletion of the categories to the database:
private void RemoveAllCategoriesAssignedToRecipe()
{
foreach (Category category in _recipe.Categories.ToArray())
{
_recipe.Categories.Remove(category);
category.Recipes.Remove(_recipe);
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
I have debugged the code and can confirm that the collections are modified correctly — that is, they contain no elements after the loop (I have also used the Clear() method). After calling SaveChanges(), they are populated again.
What am I doing wrong?
(Maybe it is important: I am using the Singleton pattern to only have one instance of the context.)
I was able to solve the problem the following way:
private void RemoveAllCategoriesAssignedToRecipe()
{
foreach (Category category in _recipe.Categories.ToArray())
{
Category categoryEntity = _categoryRepository.Retrieve(category.CategoryID);
var recipesAssignedToCategory = categoryEntity.Recipes.ToArray();
categoryEntity.Recipes.Clear();
foreach (Recipe assignedRecipe in recipesAssignedToCategory)
{
if (assignedRecipe.RecipeID == _recipe.RecipeID)
{
continue;
}
categoryEntity.Recipes.Add(assignedRecipe);
}
_context.Entry(categoryEntity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
_recipe.Categories.Clear();
_context.SaveChanges();
}
In LINQ to SQL, I could do:
context.User_Roles.DeleteAllOnSubmit(context.User_Roles.Where(ur => ur.UserId == user.UserId));
Whats the equivalent to this for entity framework?
foreach(var entity in context.User_Roles.Where(ur => ur.UserId == user.UserId))
{
context.User_Roles.DeleteObject(entity);
}
context.SaveChanges();
Of course, you can write an extension method, which would encapsulate this.
This would be something like this:
public static void DeleteObjects<TEntity> (this ObjectSet<TEntity> set, IEnumerable<TEntity> data) where TEntity : class
{
foreach(var entity in data)
set.DeleteObject(entity);
}
Called like:
context.User_Roles.DeleteObjects(context.User_Roles.Where(ur => ur.UserId == user.UserId))
context.SaveChanges();
#Femaref has the right idea, but for a true analog to L2E's DeleteAllOnSubmit, you'll want your extension method to make a copy of the entities being deleted before enumerating so that you don't get "collection modified while enumerating" exceptions.
public static void DeleteAllObjects<TEntity>(this ObjectSet<TEntity> set, IEnumerable<TEntity> data) where TEntity : class {
foreach(var entity in data.ToList()) //data.ToList() makes a copy of data for safe enumeration
set.DeleteObject(entity);
}
foreach(var entity in context.User_Roles.Where(ur => ur.UserId == user.UserId))
{
context.User_Roles.DeleteObject(entity);
}
context.SaveChanges();
of course, this solution can work. But, it is the most inefficient solution.
This solution will generate one delete SQL command for each record (entity).
Imaging that you want to delete all data before year 2000 . there are more than 1,000,000 records in the database. If delete these objects in this way, more than 1,000,000 SQL commands will be sent to the server, it is a unnecessary big waste.
What
There is no RemoveAll equivalent in Entity Framework, so you can load entities in memory and remove them one by one using DeleteObject method.
You can use Linq : context.MyEntitie.RemoveAll(context.MyEntitie);
use EntityFramework.Extensions
1) First install EntityFramework.Extensions using NuGet
2) Here is the code similar to Linq2Sql's DeleteAllOnSubmit():
using EntityFramework.Extensions;
....
public void DeleteAllUsers(User_Role user){
context.User_Roles.Delete(ur => ur.UserId == user.UserId);
context.SaveChanges();
}
...
I have a schema similar to the standard Product / OrderDetails / Order setup. I want to delete a single Product and cascade delete all OrderDetails which reference that product.
Assuming that I've thought this through from the business rules perspective, what's the most elegant way to handle that with Entity Framework 4?
First thing is first:
Is there any reason on delete cascade at the database level won't work?
If that's really not a possibility, you could try the following:
Since ObjectContext doesn't have a DeleteAll style method...you could always implement your own:
public static void DeleteAll(this ObjectContext context,
IEnumerable<Object> records)
{
foreach(Object record in records)
{
context.DeleteObject(record);
}
}
Then you could write something like (probably in a Repository):
context.DeleteAll(context.OrderDetails.Where(od => od.Product == product));
Or, to be a little cleaner:
var toDelete = context.OrderDetails.Where(od => od.Product == product);
context.DeleteAll(toDelete);