I am using the repository pattern to provide access to and saving of my aggregates.
The problem is the updating of aggregates which consist of a relationship of entities.
For example, take the Order and OrderItem relationship. The aggregate root is Order which manages its own OrderItem collection. An OrderRepository would thus be responsible for updating the whole aggregate (there would be no OrderItemRepository).
Data persistence is handled using Entity Framework 6.
Update repository method (DbContext.SaveChanges() occurs elsewhere):
public void Update(TDataEntity item)
{
var entry = context.Entry<TDataEntity>(item);
if (entry.State == EntityState.Detached)
{
var set = context.Set<TDataEntity>();
TDataEntity attachedEntity = set.Local.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id.Equals(item.Id));
if (attachedEntity != null)
{
// If the identity is already attached, rather set the state values
var attachedEntry = context.Entry(attachedEntity);
attachedEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(item);
}
else
{
entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
}
}
}
In my above example, only the Order entity will be updated, not its associated OrderItem collection.
Would I have to attach all the OrderItem entities? How could I do this generically?
Julie Lerman gives a nice way to deal with how to update an entire aggregate in her book Programming Entity Framework: DbContext.
As she writes:
When a disconnected entity graph arrives on the server side, the
server will not know the state of the entities. You need to provide a
way for the state to be discovered so that the context can be made
aware of each entity’s state.
This technique is called painting the state.
There are mainly two ways to do that:
Iterate through the graph using your knowledge of the model and set the state for each entity
Build a generic approach to track state
The second option is really nice and consists in creating an interface that every entity in your model will implement. Julie uses an IObjectWithState interface that tells the current state of the entity:
public interface IObjectWithState
{
State State { get; set; }
}
public enum State
{
Added,
Unchanged,
Modified,
Deleted
}
First thing you have to do is to automatically set the state to Unchanged for every entity retrieved from the DB, by adding a constructor in your Context class that hooks up an event:
public YourContext()
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext
.ObjectMaterialized += (sender, args) =>
{
var entity = args.Entity as IObjectWithState;
if (entity != null)
{
entity.State = State.Unchanged;
}
};
}
Then change your Order and OrderItem classes to implement the IObjectWithState interface and call this ApplyChanges method accepting the root entity as parameter:
private static void ApplyChanges<TEntity>(TEntity root)
where TEntity : class, IObjectWithState
{
using (var context = new YourContext())
{
context.Set<TEntity>().Add(root);
CheckForEntitiesWithoutStateInterface(context);
foreach (var entry in context.ChangeTracker
.Entries<IObjectWithState>())
{
IObjectWithState stateInfo = entry.Entity;
entry.State = ConvertState(stateInfo.State);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
private static void CheckForEntitiesWithoutStateInterface(YourContext context)
{
var entitiesWithoutState =
from e in context.ChangeTracker.Entries()
where !(e.Entity is IObjectWithState)
select e;
if (entitiesWithoutState.Any())
{
throw new NotSupportedException("All entities must implement IObjectWithState");
}
}
Last but not least, do not forget to set the right state of your graph entities before calling ApplyChanges ;-) (You could even mix Modified and Deleted states within the same graph.)
Julie proposes to go even further in her book:
you may find yourself wanting to be more granular with the way
modified properties are tracked. Rather than marking the entire entity
as modified, you might want only the properties that have actually
changed to be marked as modified.
In addition to marking an entity as modified, the client is also
responsible for recording which properties have been modified. One way
to do this would be to add a list of modified property names to the
state tracking interface.
But as my answer is already too long, go read her book if you want to know more ;-)
My opinionated (DDD specific) answer would be:
Cut off the EF entities at the data layer.
Ensure your data layer only returns domain entities (not EF entities).
Forget about the lazy-loading and IQueryable() goodness (read: nightmare) of EF.
Consider using a document database.
Don't use generic repositories.
The only way I've found to do what you ask in EF is to first delete or deactivate all order items in the database that are a child of the order, then add or reactivate all order items in the database that are now part of your newly updated order.
So you have done well on update method for your aggregate root, look at this domain model:
public class ProductCategory : EntityBase<Guid>
{
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Product : EntityBase<Guid>, IAggregateRoot
{
private readonly IList<ProductCategory> _productCategories = new List<ProductCategory>();
public void AddProductCategory(ProductCategory productCategory)
{
_productCategories.Add(productCategory);
}
}
it was just a product which has a product category, I've just created the ProductRepository as my aggregateroot is product(not product category) but I want to add the product category when I create or update the product in service layer:
public CreateProductResponse CreateProduct(CreateProductRequest request)
{
var response = new CreateProductResponse();
try
{
var productModel = request.ProductViewModel.ConvertToProductModel();
Product product=new Product();
product.AddProductCategory(productModel.ProductCategory);
_productRepository.Add(productModel);
_unitOfWork.Commit();
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
response.Success = false;
}
return response;
}
I just wanted to show you how to create domain methods for entities in domain and use it in service or application layer. as you can see the code below adds the ProductCategory category via productRepository in database:
product.AddProductCategory(productModel.ProductCategory);
now for updating the same entity you can ask for ProductRepository and fetch the entity and make changes on it.
note that for retrieving entity and value object of and aggregate separately you can write query service or readOnlyRepository:
public class BlogTagReadOnlyRepository : ReadOnlyRepository<BlogTag, string>, IBlogTagReadOnlyRepository
{
public IEnumerable<BlogTag> GetAllBlogTagsQuery(string tagName)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
hope it helps
Related
The entity/model has a child object, during ADD (POST) operations where I just want the parent object to be updated in the database, I simply set the child object to null. Parent object adds to database just fine and child object doesn't touch the database.
However, when I do an UPDATE (PUT) and set the same child object to null, the parent object is actually deleted from the database and child object not touched in the database?
Model code:
namespace PROJ.API.Models
{
public partial class Todo
{
public Todo()
{
}
public long TdoId { get; set; }
public string TdoDescription { get; set; } = null!;
public long PtyId { get; set; }
public virtual Priority? Priority { get; set; }
}
public partial class Priority
{
public Priority()
{
}
public long PtyId { get; set; }
public byte PtyLevel { get; set; }
public string PtyDescription { get; set; } = null!;
}
}
Entities code:
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.Schema;
namespace PROJ.API.Entities
{
public class Todo
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public long TdoId { get; set; }
public string TdoDescription { get; set; } = null!;
public long PtyId { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("PtyId")]
public virtual Priority? Priority { get; set; }
}
public class Priority
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public long PtyId { get; set; }
public byte PtyLevel { get; set; }
public string PtyDescription { get; set; } = null!;
}
}
Repository code:
public async Task<Todo?> GetTodoAsync(long tdoId)
{
var todo = await _context.Todo.Where(c => c.TdoId == tdoId)
.Include(x => x.Priority)
.FirstOrDefaultAsync();
return todo;
}
Controller code:
[HttpPut()] // UPDATE
public async Task<ActionResult> UpdateTodoAsync(Todo todo)
{
var eTodo = await _myRepository.GetTodoAsync(todo.TdoId);
if (todo.Priority == null || todo.Priority.PtyId == 0)
{
var priority = await _myRepository.GetPriorityAsync(todo.PtyId);
if (priority != null)
{
_mapper.Map(priority, todo.Priority);
}
}
_mapper.Map(todo, eTodo);
await _myRepository.SaveChangesAsync();
return NoContent();
}
My understanding is that setting the child object to null tells EF to NOT perform any operation on it in the database. TODO.PtyId is setup with a FK to PRIORITY.PtyId in the SQL database but I have NOT defined this in context (OnModelCreating) as I don't "think" I need the Fluent API approach here.
Any thoughts on what I'm doing wrong and/or why an UPDATE is actually deleting a record when I set a child object to NULL? As I noted before an ADD using the same null approach works just fine.
A couple things.
In your example and naming convention you should be explicitly nominating your FK either by attribute or fluent declaration. EF's convention is to base FK names on the "type" of the relationship, not the property name. So for instance if you have:
public virtual Priority? Pty { get; set; }
EF will be looking for a FK named Priority_ID or PriorityID, not PtyID. This behaviour may have changed in EF Core, I honestly haven't delved back into whether EF conventions can be trusted to work this out.
Lastly, this is overall a typical example of issues that can come up whenever you mix concerns with entities and use detached entities as view models. It's also outlining an issue with your repository implementation. In your case you are detaching an entity, then when passing it back to the server to update, loading the entity from data state, and using Automapper to copy the values across.
The first problem is that your repository is automatically and unconditionally eager-loading the related entity when in at least this example you don't need or want that related entity. When EF eager loads a relationship and then you set that related entity to #null, the proxy records this action and EF will interpret that as "Remove this relationship". If the related entity is not loaded/associated and left as #null when saving that top-level entity, nothing is removed. Either way you will want to avoid doing something like setting a related entity to #null if you don't want to save changes to them. The solution is either not to load related entities in the first place, ignore mapping across related entities, or marking those entities as Unchanged to avoid persisting changes to them.
Not loading Related entities:
This could either be solved by adding arguments to indicate what should be eager loaded, or considering adopting IQueryable for the repository method:
Argument:
public async Task<Todo?> GetTodoAsync(long tdoId, bool includeRelated = true)
{
var query = _context.Todo.Where(c => c.TdoId == tdoId);
if (includeRelated)
{
query = query.Include(c => c.Pty);
}
return query.FirstOrDefaultAsync();
}
In simple cases this isn't too bad, but in more complex entities it can be a pain, especially if you want to selectively include relatives. This way when you load eToDo from data state, you can tell it to not eager load the Priority. This isn't foolproof as it is still possible that a Priority could be associated if that DbContext instance had previously loaded the Priority associated with that Todo. Tracked entities will be associated even if you don't explicitly eager load them. To be safe this should be combined with the Automapper changes further below.(Excluding mapping changes) This is still a worthwhile change as you can avoid resource/performance costs of unconditionally eager loading every read.
IQueryable:
public IQueryable<Todo> GetTodoById(long tdoId)
{
var query = _context.Todo.Where(c => c.TdoId == tdoId);
return query;
}
IQueryable gives your consumer a lot more flexibility into what it wants to do with regards to data that will be coming back, but it does require a shift in thinking around the unit of work pattern to move the scope of the DbContext out into a Unit of Work so that consumers are responsible for that scope rather than at the individual repository level. The advantages of this approach are that the unit of work (DbContext scope) can be shared across repositories if needed, and with this pattern your consumer has control over things like:
Projection using Select or Count, Any, etc.
async vs. synchronous operations.
Assessing whether or not to eager load related entities.
So as an example with this pattern, the controller or service code would function more like:
[HttpPut()] // UPDATE
public async Task<ActionResult> UpdateTodoAsync(Todo todo)
{
using (var contextScope = _contextScopeFactory.Create())
{
var eTodo = await _myRepository.GetTodoById(todo.TdoId)
.SingleAsync();
_mapper.Map(todo, eTodo);
await contextScope.SaveChangesAsync();
return NoContent();
}
}
contextScope / _contextScopeFactory are a UoW pattern called DbContextScope by Medhi El Gueddari for EF6 which has a number of forks covering EF Core. I like this pattern as it gives the Repository a dependency to a locator to resolve the DbContext from the Scope rather than passing around DbContext instances, giving that scope full control over whether or not SaveChanges() gets committed or not. Leveraging IQueryable enables projection so it can help avoid this issue all-together when used to read data to send to a view to Project to a ViewModel using Automapper's ProjectTo rather than sending Entities to a View which come back to the controller as a deserialized and typically incomplete shell of what they once were.
Excluding mapping changes:
This involves adjusting the mapping you use to exclude copying across changes to the related entity when mapping one Todo across to another. If the mapping ignores Todo.Pty then you can map across just the Todo fields from the one instance to the DB instance and save the DbInstance without change tracking tripping anything changing in Pty or the relationship.
Marking as Unchanged:
Given your repository is managing the scope of the DbContext what you will likely need to do is add a method to isolate changes to just that top-level entity. Since the Repository is scoping the DbContext, this means some form of clunky method since we need to pass the entity to tweak tracking.
// eTodo.Pty = null; don't do
_myRepository.IgnoreRelatedChanges(eTodo);
await _myRepository.SaveChangesAsync();
then...
public void IgnoreRelatedChanges(Todo todo)
{
_context.Entry(todo.Pty).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
The trouble with this approach is that it is clumsy and prone to bugs/exceptions.
In any case that should provide you with some options to consider to solve your issue, and possibly consider for updating your repository pattern.
I want to add entity payment object, containing EXISTING Currency object to EF database:
public Payment()
{
int Id {get;set;}
public int Value {get;set;}
public Currency SelectedCurrency{get;set;}
}
public Currency()
{
int Id {get;set;}
string Name;
}
Suppose that I have existing Currency attached to new entity Payment(). When I add such entity Payment(), the error appears
Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'PK_dbo.Currency'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.MwbeCurrency'. The duplicate key value is (GBP).\r\nThe statement has been terminated."}
How to add higher-level entity with attached existing lower-level entity?
My code for adding entity is:
public virtual TEntity Add(TEntity entity)
{
return DbSet.Add(entity);
}
public void SaveChanges()
{
Context.SaveChanges();
}
I suspect you retrieved Currency with a different instance than the one that retrieved Payment and did something like this :
payment.Currency = retrievedCurrency;
Therefore, the Payment context things that Currency is a new object and tries to persist it. Since it already exists, you are getting a PRIMARY KEY violation.
If you want to persist Payment correctly, add the following lines:
if (payment.Currency != null && payment.Currency.Id != 0)
{
context.Entry(payment.Currency).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
although it would probably be cleaner if you retrieved Payment and Currency with the same context, so you can persist them appropriately.
Calling DbSet.Add(entity) adds the entire graph for persistence, which means it will go through all the navigation properties of entity and set each one's state to EntityState.Added.
While the other answer might work, a better approach is to change the way you are adding the objects, and be explicit about what entities you are adding / updating / etc.
To do this, change:
public virtual void Add(TEntity entity)
{
DbSet.Add(entity);
}
To:
public virtual void Add(TEntity entity)
{
context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Added;
}
This will add only the supplied entity. If one of your navigation properties objects is also new, you call .Add(entity) on it as well.
If you do need to add the entire graph in other situations, you can add an additional method that works the way your original one does, but has a better name to indicate it's function:
public virtual void AddGraph(TEntity entity)
{
DbSet.Add(entity);
}
Good Luck
Update
Additionally, since it looks like you are using a repository, I prefer to disable auto detect changes by setting context.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false; If you modify a property on an entity that you want persisted, you would need to set the state of the entity to modified like so:
public virtual void Update(TEntity entity)
{
context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
JSON Serialization (ASP.Net Web API) fails because of self-referencing loop (it’s a common problem, Reason: an entity being requested lazy loads child entities and every child has a back reference to parent entity).
Work around I found, but doesn’t help me:
Use [JsonIgnore] for navigation properties to be ignored:
This solution works but doesn’t apply in my case. For Example: To get a Customer information along with his Orders, I would quickly add [JsonIgnore] to Customer property in Order class, but when I want to get an Order information along with the Customer details, since there’s [JsonIgnore] on Customer property, it won’t include Customer details.
Change JSON.Net Serializer Settings to Preserve References:
Can’t Preserve because I don’t need Circular referenced data.
Disable Proxy Creation at the Data Context and use explicit loading(this should ideally solve the problem):
Disabling proxy creation stops Lazy Loading and returns data without error, but when I explicitly Include child entities, I again the get the unexpected self-referencing loop error! The error is at the back-reference level to parent entity.
Any experiences along the same lines/suggestions?
I tried all the suggested solutions but didn't work. Ended up with Overriding the JSON.Net Serializer’s DefaultContractResolver to this:
public class FilterContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver
{
Dictionary<Type, List<string>> _propertiesToIgnore;
public FilterContractResolver(Dictionary<Type, List<string>> propertiesToIgnore)
{
_propertiesToIgnore = propertiesToIgnore;
}
protected override JsonProperty CreateProperty(MemberInfo member, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
var property = base.CreateProperty(member, memberSerialization);
List<string> toIgnore;
property.Ignored |= ((_propertiesToIgnore.TryGetValue(member.DeclaringType, out toIgnore) || _propertiesToIgnore.TryGetValue(member.DeclaringType.BaseType, out toIgnore)) && toIgnore.Contains(property.PropertyName));
return property;
}
}
Then created a Static Class which returns a dictionary of Properties to be Ignored based on the Controller:
public static class CriteriaDefination
{
private static Dictionary<string, Dictionary<Type, List<string>>> ToIgnore = new Dictionary<string, Dictionary<Type, List<string>>>
{
{
"tblCustomer", new Dictionary<Type, List<string>>{
{
typeof(tblCustomer), new List<string>{
//include all
}
},
{
typeof(tblOrder), new List<string>{
"tblCustomer"//ignore back reference to tblCustomer
}
}
}
},
{
"tblOrder", new Dictionary<Type, List<string>>{
{
typeof(tblCustomer), new List<string>{
"tblOrders"//ignore back reference to tblOrders
}
},
{
typeof(tblOrder), new List<string>{
//include all
}
}
}
}
};
public static Dictionary<Type, List<string>> IgnoreList(string key)
{
return ToIgnore[key];
}
}
And inside every controller change the JSON Formatter something like:
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.JsonFormatter.SerializerSettings.ContractResolver = new FilterContractResolver(CriteriaDefination.IgnoreList("tblCustomer"));
This is what I ended up settling on, hopefully it helps someone else.
Say the EF classes are structured like this:
public partial class MyEF
{
public virtual ICollection<MyOtherEF> MyOtherEFs {get; set;}
}
public partial class MyOtherEF
{
public virtual MyEF MyEF {get; set;}
}
To keep serialization form happening in JSON.NET, you can extend the class and add a method with the name "ShouldSerialize" + property name like so:
public partial class MyEF
{
public bool ShouldSerializeMyOtherEFs() { return false; }
}
If you wanted to get a little more fancy, you could add logic in the method so that it would serialize in certain cases. This allows you to keep serialization logic out of the EF Model First code creation as long as this code is in a different physical code file.
Instead of letting the Entity Framework generate the model, use Code First with an existing database. Now you are more in control.
See this blog entry from Scott Guthrie
Here's the situation in its most simplified form using the EF5 Code-First approach:
public abstract class EntityBase<PK>
{
public PK ID { get; set; }
}
public class Country : EntityBase<string>
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Address : EntityBase<int>
{
[Required]
public string CountryID { get; set; }
public Country Country { get; set; }
// ... other address properties ...
}
The one-to-many relationship between Address and Country is set up with no cascade-delete like so:
modelBuilder.Entity<Address>()
.HasRequired(a => a.Country)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(a => a.CountryID)
.WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
Finally, I have a generic base repository class with CRUD methods that call SaveChanges on the underlying DbContext to commit data changes atomically. E.g.:
public class EFRepository<T, PK> : IRepository<T, PK> where T : EntityBase<PK>
{
//
// ... other methods ...
//
public virtual void Delete(T instance)
{
// ... trigger validations, write to log, etc...
_dbContext.Set<T>().Remove(instance);
try
{
_dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// ... handle the error ...
}
}
}
Part 1:
Scenario:
var countryRepo = new EFRepository<Country>();
var country = countryRepo.Save(new Country() { ID="??", Name="Test Country" });
var addressRepo = new EFRepository<Address>();
var address = addressRepo.Save(new Address() { Country=country });
countryRepo.Delete(country);
This should fail due to the existence of a dependent Address. However, afterwards the address ends up with a null in CountryID, which is invalid because Address.CountryID is required, so subsequent SaveChanges calls throw a validation exception unless the address is detached.
I expected that when an object is deleted, EF5 will be smart enough to first check for any cascade-delete constraints like the one above and, failing to find any, then proceed to delete the data. But exactly the opposite seems to be the case.
Is this a normal behaviour or am I doing something wrong?
Part 2:
Following a failed SaveChanges call, some Addresses are now in an invalid state in my DbContext and need to be restored to their original values. Of course, I can always do so explicitly for each entity type (Country, State, Order, etc.) by creating specialized repository classes and overriding Delete, but it smells big time. I'd much rather write some general purpose code to gracefully recover related entities after a failed SaveChanges call.
It would require interrogating DbContext to get all relationships in which an entity (e.g. Country) is the principal, regardless of whether or not its class defines navigational properties to dependent entities.
E.g. Country has no Addresses property, so I need to somehow find in DbContext the definition of the one-to-many relationship between Country and Address and use it to restore all related Addresses to their original values.
Is this possible?
Answering my own question in Part 2:
Here is my approach to checking for related dependents when deleting an entity on the principal end of a many-to-one relationship and where dependents are NOT exposed as a navigation collection in the principal (e.g. class Address has a Country property, but class Country doesn't have an Addresses collection).
DbContext
Add the following method to the context class:
/// <summary>
/// Returns an array of entities tracked by the
/// context that satisfy the filter criteria.
/// </summary>
public DbEntityEntry[] GetTrackedEntities<T>(
Expression<Func<DbEntityEntry<T>, bool>> filterCriteria)
where T : class
{
var result = new List<DbEntityEntry>();
var doesItMatch = filterCriteria.Compile();
foreach (var entry in this.ChangeTracker.Entries<T>())
{
if (doesItMatch(entry))
result.Add(entry);
}
return result.ToArray();
}
Repositories
Create a repository for each class that has some dependencies, override the Delete method and use the new GetTrackedEntities<T> method to get all related dependents and either:
explicitly delete them if they are cascade-deletable in code
detach them from the context if they are cascade-deletable in the DB itself
throw an exception if they are NOT cascade-deletable.
Example of the latter case:
public class EFCountryRepository :
EFReadWriteRepository<Country, string>,
ICountryRepository
{
public override void Delete(Country instance)
{
// Allow the Country to be deleted only if there are no dependent entities
// currently in the context that are NOT cascade-deletable.
if (
// are there any Regions in the context that belong to this Country?
_dbContext.GetTrackedEntities<Region>(e =>
e.Entity.CountryID == instance.ID ||
e.Entity.Country == instance).Length > 0
||
// are there any Addresses in the context that belong to this Country?
_dbContext.GetTrackedEntities<Address>(e =>
e.Entity.CountryID == instance.ID ||
e.Entity.Country == instance).Length > 0
)
throw new Exception(String.Format(
"Country '{0}' is in use and cannot be deleted.", instance.ID));
base.Delete(instance);
}
// ... other methods ...
}
Example of a case where cascade-deleting will be done by the DB itself, so all we need to do is detach the dependents from the context:
public class EFOrderRepository :
EFReadWriteRepository<Order, string>,
IOrderRepository
{
public override void Delete(Order instance)
{
foreach (var orderItem in _dbContext.GetTrackedEntities<OrderItem>(e =>
e.Entity.OrderID == instance.ID ||
e.Entity.Order == instance))
{
_dbContext.Entry(orderItem).State = System.Data.EntityState.Detached;
}
base.Delete(instance);
}
// ... other methods ...
}
Hope someone will find this solution helpful.
I have a repository like that:
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
private readonly IRepositoryContext _repositoryContext;
public Repository(IRepositoryContext repositoryContext)
{
_repositoryContext = repositoryContext;
_objectSet = repositoryContext.GetObjectSet<T>();
}
public virtual void Update(T entity)
{
ObjectSet.AddObject(entity);
_repositoryContext.ObjectContext.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(entity, EntityState.Modified);
_repositoryContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
Now that actually works for all scalar properties of the entity, but all the other entities that associated with properties of entity typeOf(T), don't care that entity state is modified, and EF simply adds new data.
So, if you do for example Repository<Student>.Update(), and you only changed the name, it will find the right Student and change his name, but it also will change the Campus, although you already have a Campus associated with that student, it will be created again with a different CampusId.
Show me please the correct way to do updates in this situation.
What I did when I wanted to follow generic approach was translated to your code something like:
public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
...
public virtual void Update(T entity)
{
if (context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(entity).State == EntityState.Detached)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(...);
}
_repositoryContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
All my code then worked like:
var attachedEntity = repository.Find(someId);
// Merge all changes into attached entity here
repository.Update(attachedEntity);
=> Doing this in generic way moves a lot of logic into your upper layer. There is no better way how to save big detached object graphs (especially when many-to-many relations are involved and deleting of relations is involved).