After switching a project from the EntityObject generator to DbContext, I ran into an issue using some navigation properties on new objects. I've spent a significant amount of time researching the problem, and I'm no closer to a desirable solution.
First, the generated class definitions:
public partial class Category
{
public Category()
{
this.Limits = new HashSet<Limit>();
}
public int CategoryId {get; set;}
public string Name {get; set;}
public virtual ICollection<Limit> Limits { internal get; set; }
}
public partial class Limit
{
public int CategoryId {get; set;}
public string Description {get; set;}
internal virtual Category Category { get; set; }
}
I am creating test data during an integration test using the following code:
using (GFCAMDataContext db = new GFCAMDataContext())
{
limit = new Limit()
{
CategoryId = testData.CategoryId,
Description = "SignerController.Update"
};
db.Limits.Add(limit);
db.SaveChanges();
}
Without any other changes, the Limit.Category property of my newly-created Limit object does not return anything. However, if I query the desired Category from the DbContext before SaveChanges is called the navigation property on my new Limit starts returning the associated Category. With ObjectContext, the Category property is updated without any intervention from me.
I would like to have the same behavior as ObjectContext, but I can't seem to find a way to achieve this goal. I've seen a couple of proposed solutions:
Make the navigation properties public. This had the same behavior, and isn't desirable as the public navigation properties can cause issues during serialization and aren't needed outside of my business layer.
Make all properties public virtual and use DbSet.Create to ensure proxy creation. This resulted in the same behavior, and isn't necessarily desirable as I have code dynamically creating instances (i.e. I don't have access to a DbSet at the time I am creating an entity instance).
Does anyone have any suggestions for a solution to this problem?
One solution would be to explicitly load the nested entity:
db.SaveChanges();
db.Entry(person).Reference(z => z.Category).Load();
The other option, when proxies are enabled, is indeed to call DbSet.Create<T>(). If you don't have access to the DbSet instance at the time you create your entities, you might want to expose a public method in your repository interface that allows that. For example:
public interface IRepository<T>
{
T Add(T entity);
T GetById(...);
void SaveChanges();
...
T CreateInstance(); // Concrete implementation have access to DbSet and uses DbSet.Create<T>()
}
Related
I've got POCO domain entities that are persisted using Entity Framework 5. They are obtained from the DbContext using a repository pattern and are exposed to a RESTful MVC WebApi application through a UoW pattern. The POCO entities are proxies and are lazy loaded.
I am converting my entities to DTOs before sending them to the client. I am using Automapper to do this and it seems to be working fine with Automapper mapping the proxy POCOs to DTOs, keeping the navigation properties intact. I am using the following mapping for this:
Mapper.CreateMap<Client, ClientDto>();
Example of Domain/DTO objects:
[Serializable]
public class Client : IEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, MaxLength(100)]
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ClientLocation> ClientLocations { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<ComplianceRequirement> DefaultComplianceRequirements { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Note> Notes { get; set; }
}
public class ClientDto : DtoBase
{
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required, MaxLength(100)]
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<ClientLocation> ClientLocations { get; set; }
public ICollection<ComplianceRequirementDto> DefaultComplianceRequirements { get; set; }
public ICollection<Note> Notes { get; set; }
}
Now I am trying to update my context using DTOs sent back up from the wire. I am having specific trouble with getting the navigational properties/related entities working properly. The mapping for this I'm using is:
Mapper.CreateMap<ClientDto, Client>()
.ConstructUsing((Func<ClientDto, Client>)(c => clientUow.Get(c.Id)));
Above, clientUow.Get() refers to DbContext.Set.Find() so that I am getting the tracked proxy POCO object from EF (that contains all of the related entities also as proxies).
In my controller method I am doing the following:
var client = Mapper.Map<ClientDto, Client>(clientDto);
uow.Update(client);
client successfully is mapped, as a proxy POCO object, however it's related entities/navigational properties are replaced with a new (non-proxy) POCO entity with property values copied from the DTO.
Above, uow.Update() basically refers to a function that performs the persist logic which I have as:
_context.Entry<T>(entity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Modified;
_context.SaveChanges();
The above doesn't persist even persist the entity, let alone related ones. I've tried variations on the mappings and different ways to persist using detaching/states but always get "an object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager" exceptions.
I've had a look at countless other threads and just can't get it all working with Automapper. I can grab a proxy object from the context and manually go through properties updating them from the DTO fine, however I am using Automapper to map domain -> DTO and it would be alot more elegant to use it to do the reverse, since my DTOs resemble my domain objects to a large extent.
Is there a textbook way to handle Automapper with EF, with Domain Objects/DTOs that have navigational properties that also need to be updated at the same time?
UPDATE:
var originalEntity = _entities.Find(entity.Id);
_context.Entry<T>(originalEntity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Detached;
_context.Entry<T>(entity).State = System.Data.EntityState.Modified;
The above persistence logic updates the 'root' EF proxy object in the context, however any related entities are not updated. I'm guessing that this is due to them not being mapped to EF proxy objects but rather plain domain objects. Help would be most appreciated!
UPDATE:
It seems that what I'm trying to achieve is not actually possible using the current version of EF(5) and that this is a core limitation of EF and not to do with Automapper:
Link
Link
I guess it's back to doing it manually. Hope this helps someone else who is wondering the same.
You have allready identified the problem:
The above persistence logic updates the 'root' EF proxy object in the
context, however any related entities are not updated
You are setting the modified state on the root node only. You must write code to iterate through all the objects and set the state to modified.
I implemented a pattern to handle this hierarchy model state with EF.
Every entity model class implements an interface like below, as do the view model classes:
public interface IObjectWithState
{
ObjectState ObjectState { get; set; }
}
The ObjectState enumeration is defined below:
public enum ObjectState
{
Unchanged = 0,
Added = 1,
Modified = 2,
Deleted = 3
}
For example when saving a deep hierarchy of objects using EF, I map the view model objects to their equivalent entity objects, including the ObjectState.
I then attach the root entity object to the context (and consequently all child objects):
dbContext.MyCustomEntities.Attach(rootEntityObj);
I then have an extension method on the DbContext that loops through all the items in the context's change tracker and update each entity's state (as you have done above).
public static int ApplyStateChanges(this DbContext context)
{
int count = 0;
foreach (var entry in context.ChangeTracker.Entries<IObjectWithState>())
{
IObjectWithState stateInfo = entry.Entity;
entry.State = ConvertState(stateInfo.ObjectState);
if (stateInfo.ObjectState != ObjectState.Unchanged)
count++;
}
return count;
}
Then we can simply save the changes as normal:
dbContext.SaveChanges();
This way, all the hierarchy of child objects will be updated accordingly in the database.
What you want to do is get the Entity from the database first:
var centity = _context.Client.First(a=>a.Id = id)
Then you map over this and update (this is what you were looking for, it will only map things it finds in the inputDTO, and leave the other properties alone)
Mapper.Map<UpdateClientInput, Client>(inputDto, centity);
_context.update();
The official approach to defining navigation properties for complex entities is:
public class SuperEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
//Other properties
}
public class LowerEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public int SuperEntityId { get; set; }
public virtual SuperEntity SuperEntity { get; set; }
//Other properties
}
The main thing here is that a class that references (allows navigation to linked super entity) has both public SuperEntity SuperEntity { get; set; } property, as well as it's Id in public int SuperEntityId { get; set; }.
I have gone a few days into my entities design ommiting the public int SuperEntityId { get; set; } property in the "lower entities". So I am navigating only by virtual SuperEntity property. And everything works fine! But I had people on SO telling me that it creates an excessive tables in the DB. I've checked, and that is not true. When I use my approach, the DB tables has the SuperEntityId column and just populates it with the referenced entity Id automatically. What's the point in this public int SuperEntityId { get; set; } field then?
Or, perhaps, what I am doing became available in a "fresh" versions of EF like 4.3?
The point of SuperEntityId is that it is sometimes easier to use a foreign key property in apps where your context isn't alive the entire time, e.g. a webapp.
In such a situation, it's a lot easier to just use a foreign key property, than to try to attach object B to object A.
As far as I know, with nav properties, EF uses an object to track the relation between 2 objects. So if you want to couple object B to object A, in a disconnected app, it's not enough to just set the property on object A, you also have to fiddle with the entry of object A in the changetracker to register the relation between B and A.
Setting a foreign key property is the equivalent of this fiddling.
When we were just beginning with EF and didn't know about all of this, every time we wanted to connect 2 objects, e.g. B to A, and B already existed in the DB, the context thought that B was a new object instead of an existing one, and duplicated the record in the DB.
It won't create excessive tables, but it will probably generate extra, or longer, queries on that database. But that depends on how you're using these entities.
I haven't been able to find someone else with this issue specifically so here goes.
I have a simple model where one entity simply references another as a parent-child or one-to-many relationship defined like this:
public class Parent
{
public int ID { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
}
public class Child
{
public int ID { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public virtual Parent Parent { get; private set; }
}
I am creating speicific mapping files for each, which work great for all the normal properties except for the related entity. It is always coming up null. No matter whether i have the virtual/private accessors on the property it will not load UNLESS i pull a copy of the parent separately from the context first. My mapping looks like this:
HasRequired(t => t.Parent).WithMany().Map(t => t.MapKey("ParentID")).WillCascadeOnDelete();
Is there anything I am doing wrong with this? I cannot for the life of me figure this out. Just so I cover all the bases, I am loading the entity like this:
Context.Set<Child>().FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == 1);
And lastly here are some constraints I have:
I cannot have the foreign keys in my model as properties.
I cannot have a collection of children from the parent.
I finally figured it out. After much trial and error I noticed that having a parameterless constructor marked as internal, EF cannot create its dynamic proxy class of your type and therefore disables all lazy loading. I have two contructors, one for EF to hydrate objects, and another with parameters requires for callers to create my entity. Once I changed the signature to protected internal it started working. So I changed this:
internal Child() {}
to
protected internal Child() {}
May be you hasn't enable lazy loading .Try this,
Context.Set<Child>().FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == 1).Include(c=>c.Parent);
I have the following Entity Models
public class User
{
public virtual long Id{get; set;}
[InverseProperty("Users")]
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags { get; protected set; }
}
public class Tag
{
public virtual long Id{get; set;}
internal protected virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
}
This is pure simple many-to-many relation User & Tag
I'm using Data Migrations. When I execute the command Add-Migration or Update-Database
I get the following error "The InversePropertyAttribute on property 'Tags' on type 'Kigg.DomainObjects.Entities.User' is not valid. The property 'Users' is not a valid navigation property on the related type 'Kigg.DomainObjects.Entities.Tag'. Ensure that the property exists and is a valid reference or collection navigation property."
When I changed the access modifier of Users property in Tag to public it worked fine and the generation is what I want.
From my design point of view I want to hide the Tag.Users property and make it protected or internal to keep it for internal use as I don't want to expose it to public API.
Note: I'm not discussing the my design here. I'm asking if it's possible to do that while Tag.Users is protected or internal?
I don't know how to make it work with data annotations but with Fluent API you can apply and experiment with the trick from here: http://blog.cincura.net/232731-mapping-private-protected-properties-in-entity-framework-4-x-code-first/
For your model it would look like the following:
public class User
{
public virtual long Id{get; set;}
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags { get; protected set; }
}
public class Tag
{
public virtual long Id{get; set;}
internal protected virtual ICollection<User> Users { get; set; }
public class PropertyAccessors
{
public static readonly Expression<Func<Tag, ICollection<User>>> Users
= t => t.Users;
}
}
Mapping in FluentAPI:
modelBuilder.Entity<User>()
.HasMany(u => u.Tags)
.WithMany(Tag.PropertyAccessors.Users);
This works and creates the expected many-to-many relationship.
But I am not sure if you can do anything useful with that navigation property. The fact that you have the property protected and virtual lets me guess that you basically want lazy loading support inside of the entity class or derived classes.
The problem is that apparently (according to my tests at least) lazy loading doesn't work for anything else than a public property. The loaded tag is a proxy but the navigation collection is always null (unless the property is public).
Moreover, even eager and explicit loading don't work:
Outside of the Tag class:
// Eager loading
var tag = context.Tags.Include(Tag.PropertyAccessors.Users).First();
// Explicit loading
var tag2 = context.Tags.First();
context.Entry(tag2).Collection(Tag.PropertyAccessors.Users).Load();
Or inside of the Tag class (some method in Tag which gets the context passed):
public DoSomething(MyContext context)
{
// Eager loading
var tag = context.Tags.Include(t => t.Users).First();
// Explicit loading
context.Entry(this).Collection(t => t.Users).Load();
}
In all cases I get an exception that the property Users on entity Tag is not a valid navigation property. (The exception disappears as soon as I make the property public.)
I don't know if adding/removing/updating relationships would work. (I doubt.)
It looks that you can map a non-public navigation property with this approach to generate the expected database schema. But it seems that there is nothing useful you can do with it.
I don't know much about EF5 but you can use the attribute InternalsVisibleToAttribute to make internal members visible to a specific assembly.
Say I have Project and Task EF Code first classes
public class Project
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Task> Tasks { get; set; }
}
public class Task
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int ProjectId { get; set; }
public bool IsDeleted {get; set;}
public virtual Project Project { get; set; }
}
Say I have
public void SomeAction()
{
Project p= repository.GetById(1);
var tasks = p.Tasks;
//var tasks = p.Tasks.Where(t=>t.IsDeleted==false);
}
I would like that my Tasks property on the Project class will always perform that filter on IsDeleted and just return that subset ... to avoid having to write that condition all over the place...
Any recommendations?
Edit:
Im using EF Code First
Add a discriminator to your model in the OnModelCreating method
modelBuilder.Entity<TEntity>().Map(m => m.Requires("IsDeleted").HasValue(false));
Caveats
You can no longer load deleted items (unless you map IsDeleted true to another entity, then you may lose your automatic filtering)
The poco class cannot have the IsDeleted property (discriminators cannot be mapped)
because the IsDeleted cannot be mapped you need to run raw SQL to delete the entity in the first place.
EF Code first = NO WAY. Just one from long list of features which is available in EDMX and it is completely missing in code first. Mapped condition from EDMX does this but it is still problematic because it is hardcoded and cannot be changed (= you will never be able to load deleted entities even if you want to unless you use another EDMX). The solution would be implementation of global filters in EF but EF doesn't have anything like that despite the fact that old Linq-to-entities have them at least for relations (DataLoadOptions.AssociateWith).
This is much more painful in relations where you cannot use eager or lazy loading without loading deleted entities to your application as well and do filtering in your application's memory.
In the Model Designer, select your Task entity, and bring up the Mapping Details window. This should show you the database table your entity is mapped to, and all the columns. Just under where it says "Maps to [YourTable]" you should see an option <Add a Condition>. This should let you set a condition like what you're looking for.