Inherits from DbSet<T> with the purposes to add property - entity-framework

Is there a way to inherits from DbSet? I want to add some new properties, like this:
public class PersonSet : DbSet<Person>
{
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
}
But I don't know how to instantiate it in my DbContext
public partial MyContext : DbContext
{
private PersonSet _personSet;
public PersonSet PersonSet
{
get
{
_personSet = Set<Person>(); // Cast Error here
_personSet.MyProperty = 10;
return _personSet;
}
}
}
How can I achieve this?

I have found an answer that works for me. I declare my DbSet properties as my derived interface in my context, e.g.:
IDerivedDbSet<Customer> Customers { get; set; }
IDerivedDbSet<CustomerOrder> CustomerOrders { get; set; }
My implementation includes a private IDbSet which which is assigned in the constructor e.g.:
public class DerivedDbSet<T> : IDerivedDbSet<T> where T : class
{
private readonly IDbSet<T> _dbSet;
public DerivedDbSet(IDbSet<T> dbSet)
{
this._dbSet = dbSet;
}
...
}
My implementation of a derived DbContext interface hides the Set<>() method like so:
new public IDerivedSet<TEntity> Set<TEntity>() where TEntity : class
{
//Instantiate _dbSets if required
if (this._dbSets == null)
{
this._dbSets = new Dictionary<Type, object>();
}
//If already resolved, return stored reference
if (this._dbSets.ContainsKey(typeof (TEntity)))
{
return (IDerivedSet<TEntity>) this._dbSets[typeof (TEntity)];
}
//Otherwise resolve, store reference and return
var resolvedSet = new GlqcSet<TEntity>(base.Set<TEntity>());
this._dbSets.Add(typeof(TEntity), resolvedSet);
return resolvedSet;
}
The derived DbContext returns a newly constructed IDerivedSet or picks it's reference cached in a Dictionary. In the derived DbContext I call a method from the constructor which uses type reflection to go through the DbContexts properties and assigns a value/reference using it's own Set method. See here:
private void AssignDerivedSets()
{
var properties = this.GetType().GetProperties();
var iDerivedSets =
properties.Where(p =>
p.PropertyType.IsInterface &&
p.PropertyType.IsGenericType &&
p.PropertyType.Name.StartsWith("IDerivedSet") &&
p.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments().Count() == 1).ToList();
foreach (var iDerivedSet in iDerivedSets)
{
var entityType = iDerivedSet.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments().FirstOrDefault();
if (entityType != null)
{
var genericSet = this.GetType().GetMethods().FirstOrDefault(m =>
m.IsGenericMethod &&
m.Name.StartsWith("Set") &&
m.GetGenericArguments().Count() == 1);
if (genericSet != null)
{
var setMethod = genericSet.MakeGenericMethod(entityType);
iDerivedSet.SetValue(this, setMethod.Invoke(this, null));
}
}
}
}
Works a treat for me. My context class has navigable set properties of my set type that implements a derived interface inheriting IDbSet. This means I can include query methods on my set type, so that queries are unit testable, instead of using the static extensions from the Queryable class. (The Queryable methods are invoked directly by my own methods).

One solution is to create a class that implements IDbSet and delegates all operations to a real DbSet instance, so you can store state.
public class PersonSet : IDbSet<Person>
{
private readonly DbSet<Person> _dbSet;
public PersonSet(DbSet<Person> dbSet)
{
_dbSet = dbSet;
}
public int MyProperty { get; set; }
#region implementation of IDbSet<Person>
public Person Add(Person entity)
{
return _dbSet.Add(entity);
}
public Person Remove(Person entity)
{
return _dbSet.Remove(entity);
}
/* etc */
#endregion
}
Then in your DbContext, put a getter for your Custom DbSet:
public class MyDbContext: DbContext
{
public DbSet<Person> People { get; set; }
private PersonSet _personSet;
public PersonSet PersonSet
{
get
{
if (_personSet == null)
_personSet = new PersonSet( Set<Person>() );
_personSet.MyProperty = 10;
return _personSet;
}
set
{
_personSet = value;
}
}
}

I solved this using another variable to instantiate the "regular" DbSet.
private DbSet<Person> _persons { get; set; }
public PersonDbSet<Person> Persons { get { return new PersonDbSet(_persons); } }
This way entityframework recognizes the Entity but I can still use my own DbSet class.

I know this is really old and the OP has probably moved on but I was just wondering the same thing myself. EF populates the DbSets inside your MyContext at run time.
I just created MyDbSet<T> that inherits from DbSet<T> and the replaced all references to DbSet<T> with my derived class in MyContext. Running my program failed to instantiate any of the properties.
Next I tried setting the properties to IDbSet<T> since DbSet<T> implements this interface. This DOES work.
Investigating further, the constructors for DbSet are protected and internal (the protected one calls the internal one anyway). So MS have made it pretty hard to roll your own version. You may be able to access the internal constructors through reflection but chances are that EF will not construct your derived class anyway.
I would suggest writing an extension method to plug the functionality into the DbSet object, however you're stuck if you want to store state.

Related

How to use DI in DbSet

I want to implement business logic in DbSet derived classes. I like the idea of not having services and DAL abstractions and think this could be a good way. For this to work I need to inject objects into my DbSet but I don't know how. Here some sample code which does not work, because the EF Framework can't create an object of the DbSet. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction?
public class LongTermBookingDbSet : DbSet<LongTermBooking>
{
DbContext _dbContext { get; set; }
public LongTermBookingDbSet(DbContext dbContext )
{
this._dbContext = _bContext ;
}
public override LongTermBooking Add(LongTermBooking entity)
{
return this.Add(entity, false);
}
public LongTermBooking Add(LongTermBooking entity, bool SendMails)
{
var dbSet = base.Add(entity);
//do something with the _dbContext
return dbSet;
}
}
One of the options is to aggregate real DbSet, not derive it:
public class PersonSet : IDbSet<Person>
{
private readonly DbSet<Person> _dbSet;
public PersonSet(DbSet<Person> dbSet)
{
_dbSet = dbSet;
}
}
public class MyDbContext: DbContext
{
public PersonSet PersonSet {...}
}
Inherits from DbSet<T> with the purposes to add property

Adding New Objects with Entity Framework Repository Pattern

I am using Entity Framework and implementing the Repository pattern. Every example that I've been of adding new objects is something like this:
class MyRepository
{
public MyContext Context { get; set; }
public Add(MyObject myObject)
{
this.Context.MyObjects.Add(myObject);
}
public Save()
{
this.Context.SaveChanges();
}
}
// A window which lets the user add items to the repository
class MyWindow
{
private MyRepository Repository { get; set; }
private void DoSomething()
{
List<MyClass> myObjects = this.Repository.GetMyObjects();
// When I create a new object, I have to add the new object to the myObjects list and separately to the repository
MyClass newObject = new MyClass();
myObjects.Add(newObject);
this.Repository.Add(newObject);
// Do stuff to the objects in "myObjects"
this.Repository.Save();
}
}
What I want to be able to do is add new objects to the myObjects list (without having to add them to the repository on a separate line), and then just call something like this.Repository.Save(myObjects) when I'm ready to save them. Having to explicitly add every new object to the repository seems to break up the separation-of-concerns model. Is there a recommended way to do this, or is my reasoning flawed?
EDIT: DDiVita - I'm not sure what you mean by "attaching the entities to the context". This is what I'm currently doing in my Repository class:
public List<MyObject> GetMyObjects()
{
return this.Context.MyObjects.ToList();
}
Then in my Context class:
class MyContext : Context
{
public DbSet<MyObject> MyObjects { get; set; }
}
You can use the AddOrUpdate extension (the link is for Version 6 of EF) method on the DbSet. With this you can specify an identifier that EF will recognize as a unique value to either update or add the entity.
Let's assume your entity MyObject looks like this and the Id is always unique in your database:
public class MyObject
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public Save(List<MyObject> myObjects)
{
this.Context.MyObjects.AddOrUpdate(m => m.Id,myObjects.ToArray());
this.Context.SaveChanges();
}
What you could do is use AddRange
public Save(List<MyObject> myObjects)
{
this.Context.MyObjects.AddRange(myObjects);
this.Context.SaveChanges();
}
And then your code could look like this
private void DoSomething()
{
List<MyObject> myObjects = this.Repository.GetMyObjects();
MyObject newObject = new MyObject();
myObjects.Add(newObject);
// Do stuff to the objects in "myObjects"
this.Repository.Save(myObjects);
}

Decoupling Entity Framework from my POCO classes

I'm dynamically creating my DbContext by iterating over any entities that inherit from EntityBase and adding them to my Context:
private void AddEntities(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
var entityMethod = typeof(DbModelBuilder).GetMethod("Entity");
foreach (var assembly in AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies())
{
var entityTypes = assembly.GetTypes()
.Where(x => x.IsSubclassOf(typeof(EntityBase)) && !x.IsAbstract);
foreach (var type in entityTypes)
{
dynamic entityConfiguration = entityMethod.MakeGenericMethod(type).Invoke(modelBuilder, new object[] { });
EntityBase entity = (EntityBase)Activator.CreateInstance(type);
//Add any specific mappings that this class has defined
entity.OnModelCreating(entityConfiguration);
}
}
}
That way, I can have many namespaces but just one generic repository in my base namespace that's used everywhere. Also, in apps that make use of multiple namespaces, the base repository will already be setup to use all the entities in all the loaded namespaces. My problem is, I don't want to make EntityFramework.dll a dependency of every namespace in the company. So I'm calling OnModelCreating and passing the EntityTypeConfiguration to the class so it can add any mappings. This works fine and here's how I can add a mapping to tell the model that my "Description" property comes from a column called "Descriptor":
class Widget... {
public override void OnModelCreating(dynamic entity)
{
System.Linq.Expressions.Expression<Func<Widget, string>> tmp =
x => x.Description;
entity.Property(tmp).HasColumnName("Descriptor");
}
The good thing is, my entity class has no reference to EF, this method is only called once, when the context is created and if we scrap EF and go to something else in the future, my classes won't have all sorts of attributes specific to EF in them.
The problem is, it's super ugly. How can I let the model know about column mappings and keys in a simpler way than creating these Expressions to get properties to map without hard coding references to EF all over my poco classes?
You could define your own Attributes and use these to control the configuration within OnModelCreating(). You should be able to gain (using reflection) all the details you need for column mapping in one linq query a second query for the creation of the key.
public class DatabaseNameAttribute : Attribute
{
private readonly string _name;
public DatabaseNameAttribute(string name)
{
_name = name;
}
public string Name
{
get
{
return _name;
}
}
}
public class KeySequenceAttribute : Attribute
{
private readonly int _sequence;
public KeySequenceAttribute(int sequence)
{
_sequence = sequence;
}
public int Sequence
{
get
{
return _sequence;
}
}
}
[DatabaseName("BlogEntry")]
public class Post
{
[DatabaseName("BlogId")]
[KeySequence(1)]
public int id { get; set; }
[DatabaseName("Description")]
public string text { get; set; }
}

Entity Framework 4.1 insert error

i have written a generic repository for my base windows which have a problem with.
lets be more specific, there is a little poco class called Unit as following:
public class Unit : BaseEntity
{
public string Name { get; set; }
private ICollection<Good> _goods;
public virtual ICollection<Good> Goods
{
get
{
if(_goods==null)
{
return new List<Good>();
}
return _goods;
}
set { _goods = value; }
}
}
which is inherited from a base entity class as :
public class BaseEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return Id.ToString();
}
}
and this is my Add section of generic repository class:
public void Add(TEntity entity)
{
if (entity == null) return;
if (Context.Entry(entity).State == EntityState.Detached)
{
Context.Set<TEntity>().Attach(entity);
}
Context.Set<TEntity>().Add(entity);
Context.SaveChanges();
}
before add a new record, max id is fetched from db and placed in IdTextBox and them add method of base form is called which calls aforementioned Add method of base repository. here is the problem, i get this error, "The property 'Id' is part of the object's key information and cannot be modified."
there is also a mapper class that maps every property to its corresponding control which does its job fine.
What is my problem?
Thanks in advance.
i figured out that this problem is occured because of auto detect changes enability which was true.

Can I hide my ICollection<T> fields when I have a one-to-many mapping in EF4 code-only?

My domain classes that have one-to-many mappings generally take the following form (untested code):
public Customer Customer
{
// Public methods.
public Order AddOrder(Order order)
{
_orders.Add(order);
}
public Order GetOrder(long id)
{
return _orders.Where(x => x.Id).Single();
}
// etc.
// Private fields.
private ICollection<Order> _orders = new List<Order>();
}
The EF4 code-only samples I've seen expose a public ICollection when dealing with one-to-many relationships.
Is there a way to persist and restore my collections with exposing them? If not, it would appear that my domain objects will be designed to meet the requirements of the ORM, which seems to go against the spirit of the endeavour. Exposing an ICollection (with it's Add, etc. methods) doesn't seem particularly clean, and wouldn't be my default approach.
Update
Found this post that suggests it wasn't possible in May. Of course, the Microsoft poster did say that they were "strongly considering implementing" it (I'd hope so) and we're half a year on, so maybe there's been some progress?
I found that whatever was done, EF requires the ICollection<T> to be public. I think this is because when the objects are loaded from the database, the mapping looks for a collection property, gets the collection and then calls the Add method of the collection to add each of the child objects.
I wanted to ensure that the addition was done through a method on the parent object so created a solution of wrapping the collection, catching the add and directing it to my preferred method of addition.
Extending a List and other collection types was not possible because the Add method is not virtual. One option is to extend Collection class and override the InsertItem method.
I have only focussed on the Add, Remove, and Clear functions of the ICollection<T> interface as those are the ones that can modify the collection.
First, is my base collection wrapper which implements the ICollection<T> interface
The default behaviour is that of a normal collection. However, the caller can specify an alternative Add method to be called. In addition, the caller can enforce that the Add, Remove, Clear operations are not permitted by setting the alternatives to null. This results in NotSupportedException being thrown if anyone tries to use the method.
The throwing of an exception is not as good as preventing access in the first place. However, code should be tested (unit tested) and an exception will be found very quickly and a suitable code change made.
public abstract class WrappedCollectionBase<T> : ICollection<T>
{
private ICollection<T> InnerCollection { get { return GetWrappedCollection(); } }
private Action<T> addItemFunction;
private Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction;
private Action clearFunction;
/// <summary>
/// Default behaviour is to be like a normal collection
/// </summary>
public WrappedCollectionBase()
{
this.addItemFunction = this.AddToInnerCollection;
this.removeItemFunction = this.RemoveFromInnerCollection;
this.clearFunction = this.ClearInnerCollection;
}
public WrappedCollectionBase(Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction) : this()
{
this.addItemFunction = addItemFunction;
this.removeItemFunction = removeItemFunction;
this.clearFunction = clearFunction;
}
protected abstract ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection();
public void Add(T item)
{
if (this.addItemFunction != null)
{
this.addItemFunction(item);
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Direct addition to this collection is not permitted");
}
}
public void AddToInnerCollection(T item)
{
this.InnerCollection.Add(item);
}
public bool Remove(T item)
{
if (removeItemFunction != null)
{
return removeItemFunction(item);
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Direct removal from this collection is not permitted");
}
}
public bool RemoveFromInnerCollection(T item)
{
return this.InnerCollection.Remove(item);
}
public void Clear()
{
if (this.clearFunction != null)
{
this.clearFunction();
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("Clearing of this collection is not permitted");
}
}
public void ClearInnerCollection()
{
this.InnerCollection.Clear();
}
public bool Contains(T item)
{
return InnerCollection.Contains(item);
}
public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex)
{
InnerCollection.CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
}
public int Count
{
get { return InnerCollection.Count; }
}
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return ((ICollection<T>)this.InnerCollection).IsReadOnly; }
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return InnerCollection.GetEnumerator();
}
System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return InnerCollection.GetEnumerator();
}
}
Given that base class we can use it in two ways. Examples are using the original post objects.
1) Create a specific type of wrapped collection (For example, List)
public class WrappedListCollection : WrappedCollectionBase, IList
{
private List innerList;
public WrappedListCollection(Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction)
: base(addItemFunction, removeItemFunction, clearFunction)
{
this.innerList = new List<T>();
}
protected override ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection()
{
return this.innerList;
}
<...snip....> // fill in implementation of IList if important or don't implement IList
}
This can then be used:
public Customer Customer
{
public ICollection<Order> Orders {get { return _orders; } }
// Public methods.
public void AddOrder(Order order)
{
_orders.AddToInnerCollection(order);
}
// Private fields.
private WrappedListCollection<Order> _orders = new WrappedListCollection<Order>(this.AddOrder, null, null);
}
2) Give a collection to be wrapped using
public class WrappedCollection<T> : WrappedCollectionBase<T>
{
private ICollection<T> wrappedCollection;
public WrappedCollection(ICollection<T> collectionToWrap, Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction)
: base(addItemFunction, removeItemFunction, clearFunction)
{
this.wrappedCollection = collectionToWrap;
}
protected override ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection()
{
return this.wrappedCollection;
}
}
which can be used as follows:
{
public ICollection Orders {get { return _wrappedOrders; } }
// Public methods.
public void AddOrder(Order order)
{
_orders.Add(order);
}
// Private fields.
private ICollection<Order> _orders = new List<Order>();
private WrappedCollection<Order> _wrappedOrders = new WrappedCollection<Order>(_orders, this.AddOrder, null, null);
}
There are some other ways to call the WrappedCollection constructors
For example, to override add but keep remove and clear as normal
private WrappedListCollection<Order> _orders = new WrappedListCollection(this.AddOrder, (Order o) => _orders.RemoveFromInnerCollection(o), () => _orders.ClearInnerCollection());
I agree that it would be best if EF would not require the collection to be public but this solution allows me to control the modification of my collection.
For the problem of preventing access to the collection for querying you can use approach 2) above and set the WrappedCollection GetEnumerator method to throw a NotSupportedException. Then your GetOrder method can stay as it is. A neater method however may be to expose the wrapped collection. For example:
public class WrappedCollection<T> : WrappedCollectionBase<T>
{
public ICollection<T> InnerCollection { get; private set; }
public WrappedCollection(ICollection<T> collectionToWrap, Action<T> addItemFunction, Func<T, bool> removeItemFunction, Action clearFunction)
: base(addItemFunction, removeItemFunction, clearFunction)
{
this.InnerCollection = collectionToWrap;
}
protected override ICollection<T> GetWrappedCollection()
{
return this.InnerCollection;
}
}
Then the call in the GetOrder method would become
_orders.InnerCollection.Where(x => x.Id == id).Single();
Another way to accomplish this would be to create an associated interface for each of your POCOs to expose only what you want outside of the persistence/domain layers. You can also interface your DbContext class to also hide and control access to the DbSet collections. As it turns out, the DbSet properties can be protected, and the model builder will pick them up when it's creating tables, but when you try to access the collections they will be null. A factory method (in my example, CreateNewContext) can be used instead of the constructor to get the interfaced DbContext to conceal the DbSet collections.
There's quite a bit of extra effort in coding, but if hiding implementation details within the POCOs is important, this will work.
UPDATE: It turns out you CAN populate DBSets if they are protected, but not directly in the DBContext. They can't be aggregate roots (i.e. accessibility of the entity has to be through a collection in one of the public DBSet entities). If hiding the implementation of DBSet is important, the interface pattern I've described is still relevant.
public interface ICustomer
{
void AddOrder(IOrder order);
IOrder GetOrder(long id);
}
public Customer : ICustomer
{
// Exposed methods:
void ICustomer.AddOrder(IOrder order)
{
if (order is Order)
orders.Add((Order)order);
else
throw new Exception("Hey! Not a mapped type!");
}
IOrder ICustomer.GetOrder(long id)
{
return orders.Where(x => x.Id).Single();
}
// public collection for EF
// The Order class definition would follow the same interface pattern illustrated
// here for the Customer class.
public ICollection<Order> orders = new List<Order>();
}
public interface IMyContext
{
IEnumerable<ICustomer> GetCustomers();
void AddCustomer(ICustomer customerObject);
ICustomer CreateNewCustomer()
}
public class MyContext : DbContext, IMyContext
{
public static IMyContext CreateNewContext() { return new MyContext(); }
public DbSet<Customer> Customers {get;set;}
public DbSet<Order> Orders {get;set;}
public IEnumerable<ICustomer> GetCustomers()
{
return Customers;
}
public void AddCustomer(ICustomer customerObject)
{
if (customerObject is Customer)
Customers.Add((Customer)customerObject);
else
throw new Exception("Hey! Not a mapped type");
}
public ICustomer CreateNewCustomer()
{
return Customers.Create();
}
// wrap the Removes, Finds, etc as necessary. Remember to add these to the
// DbContext's interface
// Follow this pattern also for Order/IOrder
}
If you change the name of your _orders collection to the name of the orders table in your database, this should work. EF maps table/field names to collections/properties by convention. If you want to use a different name you could edit the mappings in the edmx file.
AFAIK you can just leave the private modifier as it is. Collections do not need to be public.