It's quite self-explainatory.
I have a class that contains another
Let's call them Subject and Classroom
public class Subject
{
public Classroom Class {get; set;}
}
I'm using stateless facades, wich means my DbContext is disposed right after recovering the objects and is created to store the new ones.
Shouldn't it know that Classroom isn't a new object since it's ID is already in the DB?
Using the debugger I can track to the point right before I call the SaveChanges method and Classroom.id is the one I have on the database.
What's the problem? EF adds a new Classroom with the exact properties as the previous one, but with a new PK.
What am I doing wrong here?
This is the code used for the general CRUD operations (They are in my DbContext) Both update and delete work just fine:
public void Update(DbSet MySet, object Obj)
{
MySet.Attach(Obj);
var Entry = this.Entry(Obj);
Entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
this.SaveChanges();
}
public void Insert(DbSet MySet, object Obj)
{
MySet.Add(Obj);
this.SaveChanges();
}
public void Delete(DbSet MySet, object Obj)
{
MySet.Attach(Obj);
var Entry = this.Entry(Obj);
Entry.State = EntityState.Deleted;
this.SaveChanges();
}
Without seeing you're actual code on how you're either updating or creating your Subject entity, it's hard to tell. However, you're probably not attaching the Classroom so EF is assuming that the entity is new, when it's really not.
using (Model m = new Model())
{
m.Subject.Add(subject);
m.Classrooms.Attach(subject.Class);
m.SaveChanges();
}
Even though the PK is the same, without attaching to the Context, EF has no way of figuring out what you're intention is. Attaching the entity explicitly tells your context what you want.
Related
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 have a method that receives an IEnumerable<Guid> of IDs to objects I want to delete. One suggested method is as follows
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
DataContext.Attach(tempInstance); // Exception here
DataContext.Remove(tempInstance);
}
This works fine if the objects aren't already loaded into memory. But my problem is that when they are already loaded then the Attach method throws an InvalidOperationException - The instance of entity type 'MyEntity' cannot be tracked because another instance with the key value 'Id:...' is already being tracked. The same happens if I use DataContext.Remove without calling Attach.
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
DataContext.Remove(tempInstance); // Exception here
}
I don't want to use DataContext.Find to grab the instance of an already loaded object because that will load the object into memory if it isn't already loaded.
I cannot use DataContext.ChangeTracker to find already loaded objects because only objects with modified state appear in there and my objects might be loaded and unmodified.
The following approach throws the same InvalidOperationException when setting EntityEntry.State, even when I override GetHashCode and Equals on MyEntity to ensure dictionary lookups see them as the same object.
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
EntityEntry entry = DataContext.Entry(tempInstance);
entry.State == EntityState.Deleted; // Exception here
}
The only way so far I have found that I can achieve deleting objects by ID without knowing if the object is the following:
foreach(Guid id in ids)
{
var tempInstance = new MyEntity { Id = id };
try
{
DataContext.Attach(tempInstance); // Exception here
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
}
DataContext.Remove(tempInstance);
}
It's odd that I am able to call DataContext.Remove(tempInstance) without error after experiencing an exception trying to Attach it, but at this point it does work without an exception and also deletes the correct rows from the database when DataContext.SaveChanges is executed.
I don't like catching the exception. Is there a "good" way of achieving what I want?
Note: If the class has a self-reference then you need to load the objects into memory so EntityFrameworkCore can determine in which order to delete the objects.
Strangely, although this is a quite common exception in EF6 and EF Core, neither of them expose publicly a method for programmatically detecting the already tracked entity instance with the same key. Note that overriding GetHashCode and Equals doesn't help since EF is using reference equality for tracking entity instances.
Of course it can be obtained from the DbSet<T>.Local property, but it would not be as efficient as the internal EF mechanism used by Find and the methods throwing the aforementioned exception. All we need is the first part of the Find method and returning null when not found instead of loading from the database.
Luckily, for EF Core the method that we need can be implemented relatively easily by using some of the EF Core internals (under the standard This API supports the Entity Framework Core infrastructure and is not intended to be used directly from your code. This API may change or be removed in future releases. policy). Here is the sample implementation, tested on EF Core 2.0.1:
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Internal;
namespace Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
{
public static partial class CustomExtensions
{
public static TEntity FindTracked<TEntity>(this DbContext context, params object[] keyValues)
where TEntity : class
{
var entityType = context.Model.FindEntityType(typeof(TEntity));
var key = entityType.FindPrimaryKey();
var stateManager = context.GetDependencies().StateManager;
var entry = stateManager.TryGetEntry(key, keyValues);
return entry?.Entity as TEntity;
}
}
}
Now you can use simply:
foreach (var id in ids)
DataContext.Remove(DataContext.FindTracked<MyEntity>(id) ?? new MyEntity { Id = id }));
or
DataContext.RemoveRange(ids.Select(id =>
DataContext.FindTracked<MyEntity>(id) ?? new MyEntity { Id = id }));
I'm using EF5 code first.
We have a method
LogHistoryTracking(DbEntityEntry entity)
to log changes when SaveChanges is called.
At SaveChanges, we get the changed entities and pass into LogHistoryTracking
var changedEntities = ChangeTracker.Entries().ToList();
But when I access
changedEntity.OriginalValues.PropertyNames
there is no properties for foreign keys object (only foreign key Id - but how can we get the data when there is only id here?).
I also tried to google for a solution, but this issue might be not so popular.
There is this article, but it does not work.
Appreciate any help. Thanks.
If you want to have your entity properties to be accessible you must 'Include' them prior to accessing them. Like in the following example which gets the orders of the first cutomer :
var orders = context.Customers
.Include("Orders")
.First().Orders;
In this example if you do not call .Include("Orders") you will not have Customer.Orders. The same goes if you have foreign key and forget to include the navigation property of the foreign key. This is because the key (the ID) is part of the object and the navigation property is not.
Let us see one real world example :
public class Employee : Entity
{
public virtual int CompanyUserId { get; set; }
public virtual CompanyUser CompanyUser { get; set; }
//... cut out for brevity
}
If you get the employees like this :
var employees = context.Employees;
You will not be able to access employees[0].CompanyUser after
context.SaveChanges() because of lazy loading. The connection is disposed after context.SaveChanges(), so no more data fetching.
But if you call :
var employees = context.Employees
.Include("CompanyUser")
.ToArray();
You will be able to access employees[0].CompanyUser.SomeProperty right away before context.SaveChanges regardless lazy loading because ToArray() will execute the query and fetch the entities with the "includes".
If you call :
var employees = context.Employees
.Include("CompanyUser");
Then you will have employee[0].CompanyUser.SomeProperty even after context.SaveChanges() with Lazy Loading because you have told EF to include "CompanyUser" property before executing the query. On execution EF will include the named property.
UPDATE
Intercepting DbContext can be done in at least two different ways.
First - override SaveChanges() or SaveChangesAsync because it is virtual:
public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
public event Action<MyDbContext> SavingChanges = _ => { };
public override int SaveChanges()
{
this.SavingChanges(this);
return base.SaveChanges();
}
}
Second way without direct override is by hiding the DbContext inside interface like this one (this is from real project) :
public interface IUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
void Commit();
}
Third way (somewhat different) is by intercepting the Db calls.
Fourth way exists but it depends on what IoC you use. If you use Castle Windsor you can use interceptors. I suppose that with every IoC there is its own way of intercepting this.
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();
}
If I run the following code it throws the following error:
An entity object cannot be referenced by multiple instances of IEntityChangeTracker
public void Save(Category category)
{
using(var db = new NorthwindContext())
{
if(category.CategoryID == 0)
{
db.AddToCategorySet(category);
}
else
{
//category.RemoveTracker();
db.Attach(category);
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
The reason is of course that the category is sent from interface which we got from GetById method which already attached the EntityChangeTracker to the category object. I also tried to set the entity tracker to null but it did not update the category object.
protected void Btn_Update_Category_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_categoryRepository = new CategoryRepository();
int categoryId = Int32.Parse(txtCategoryId.Text);
var category = _categoryRepository.GetById(categoryId);
category.CategoryName = txtUpdateCategoryName.Text;
_categoryRepository.Save(category);
}
I'm still learning Entity Framework myself, but maybe I can help a little. When working with the Entity Framework, you need to be aware of how you're handling different contexts. It looks like you're trying to localize your context as much as possible by saying:
public void Save(Category category)
{
using (var db = new NorthwindContext())
{
...
}
}
... within your data access method. Did you do the same thing in your GetById method? If so, did you remember to detach the object you got back so that it could be attached later in a different context?
public Category GetById(int categoryId)
{
using (var db = new NorthwindContext())
{
Category category = (from c in db.Category where Category.ID == categoryId select c).First();
db.Detach(category);
}
}
That way when you call Attach it isn't trying to step on an already-attached context. Does that help?
As you pointed out in your comment, this poses a problem when you're trying to modify an item and then tell your database layer to save it, because once an item is detached from its context, it no longer keeps track of the changes that were made to it. There are a few ways I can think of to get around this problem, none of them perfect.
If your architecture supports it, you could expand the scope of your context enough that your Save method could use the same context that your GetById method uses. This helps to avoid the whole attach/detach problem entirely, but it might push your data layer a little closer to your business logic than you would like.
You can load a new instance of the item out of the new context based on its ID, set all of its properties based on the category that is passed in, and then save it. This costs two database round-trips for what should really only need one, and it isn't very maintainable.
You can dig into the context itself to mark the Category's properties as changed.
For example:
public void Save(Category category)
{
using (var db = new NorthwindContext())
{
db.Attach(category);
var stateEntry = db.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(category);
foreach (var propertyName in stateEntry.CurrentValues.DataRecordInfo.FieldMetadata.Select(fm => fm.FieldType.Name)) {
stateEntry.SetModifiedProperty(propertyName);
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
}
This looks a little uglier, but should be more performant and maintainable overall. Plus, if you want, you could make it generic enough to throw into an extension method somewhere so you don't have to see or repeat the ugly code, but you still get the functionality out of it.