I have not run into this before, because I usually handled collections by them selves instead of modifying them directly on the entity.
public class Schedule: BaseEntity
{
public Guid Id {get;set;}
public virtual int? DayOfTheWeekTypeId { get; set; }
public virtual DayOfTheWeekType DayOfTheWeekType { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Instructor> Instructors { get; set; }
public DateTime? StartDateTime { get; set; }
public DateTime? EndDateTime { get; set; }
public string SpecialInstructions { get; set; }
}
Mapping class:
public ScheduleMapping()
{
HasMany(c => c.Instructors).WithMany().Map(m => { m.MapLeftKey("ScheduleId");
m.MapRightKey("InstructorId");
m.ToTable("Schedule_Instructors");
});
HasOptional(s => s.DayOfTheWeekType).WithMany().HasForeignKey(s => s.DayOfTheWeekTypeId).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
Property(s => s.SpecialInstructions).IsMaxLength();
}
This is my update method:
public virtual void Update(TEntity entity)
{
if (entity == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
//this is the original persisted entity
var persistedEntity = _repository.GetById(entity.Id);
if(originalEntity != null)
{
entity.Id = persistedEntity.Id;
UnitOfWork.ApplyCurrentValues<TEntity>(originalEntity,entity);
UnitOfWork.Commit();
}
}
This is the Method that handled the "merge"
public void ApplyCurrentValues<TEntity>(TEntity original, TEntity current) where TEntity : class
{
base.Entry<TEntity>(original).CurrentValues.SetValues(current);
}
If I modify the Instructors collection then try to apply the update, it seems to keep my original values. I have tried loading the the Schedule entity prior to the update and make my changes, but sometimes that causes a PK error (on the Instructors collection) in entity framework. As if it is trying to add an entity with the same key. So, instead I am rebuilding the Schedule entity (including the ID) manually and then updating it. When I do that I do not get any more errors, however, the Instructors collections doesn't change. I am thinking because CurrentValues. SetValues is being applied based on the persisted entity and not my updated version. the Should I handle my updates differently or do I need to manully
SetValues never updates navigation properties. When you execute your code it only knows about changes in simple / complex properties of the entity passed to your Update method. EF even don't know about related entities of the entity passed to your Update method.
You must manually tell EF about each change in your object graph - EF doesn't have any resolution mechanism for object graphs.
Related
I am working on .NET CORE 6 along with EF CORE 7. I need to seed data in joining table but unable to do so and get error.
I am seed FileTypeId but not sure why EF core migration throwing error...
error
The seed entity for entity type 'JobFileType' cannot be added because it has the navigation 'FileType' set. To seed relationships, add the entity seed to 'JobFileType' and specify the foreign key values {'FileTypeId'}. Consider using 'DbContextOptionsBuilder.EnableSensitiveDataLogging' to see the involved property values.
ClassA
public class JobProfile
{
public JobProfile()
{
this.JobFileTypes = new HashSet<JobFileType>();
}
public Guid JobProfileId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public ICollection<JobFileType>? JobFileTypes { get; set; }
}
ClassB
public class FileType
{
public FileType()
{
this.JobFileTypes = new HashSet<JobFileType>();
}
public Guid FileTypeId { get; set; }
public string Extension { get; set; } = string.Empty;
public ICollection<JobFileType>? JobFileTypes { get; set; }
}
Joing Table
public class JobFileType
{
public Guid JobFileTypeId { get; set; }
public Guid JobProfileId { get; set; }
public JobProfile JobProfile { get; set; } = new JobProfile();
public Guid FileTypeId { get; set; }
public FileType FileType { get; set; } = new FileType();
}
Seed Extension
public static class JobFileTypeSeed
{
public static void Seed(this ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<JobFileType>()
.HasData(
new JobFileType {JobFileTypeId = Guid.Parse("aaa"), JobProfileId = Guid.Parse("ccc"), FileTypeId = Guid.Parse("yyy") },
new JobFileType { JobFileTypeId = Guid.Parse("bbb"), JobProfileId = Guid.Parse("ccc"), FileTypeId = Guid.Parse("zzz") }
);
}
}
config
internal class JobFileTypeConfiguration : IEntityTypeConfiguration<JobFileType>
{
public void Configure(EntityTypeBuilder<JobFileType> builder)
{
builder.ToTable("JobFileType", "dbo");
builder.HasKey(column => column.JobFileTypeId);
builder
.HasOne(jobFileType => jobFileType.JobProfile)
.WithMany(jobProfile => jobProfile.JobFileTypes)
.HasForeignKey(jobFileType => jobFileType.JobProfileId);
builder
.HasOne(jobFileType => jobFileType.FileType)
.WithMany(fileType => fileType.JobFileTypes)
.HasForeignKey(jobFileType => jobFileType.FileTypeId);
}
}
There is not much to say about the concrete issue (which btw is not specific to joining entity, but any entity model seeding):
I am seed FileTypeId but not sure why EF core migration throwing error...
as the cause of the issue is included at the beginning of the error message:
because it has the navigation 'FileType' set.
And your entity has
public FileType FileType { get; set; } = new FileType();
// ^ ^ ^
// the problem
and the same for
public JobProfile JobProfile { get; set; } = new JobProfile();
which will be the next error if you resolve the original.
Remove both navigation property initializers (= new ...) and the problem will be gone.
As a general rule, you should never initialize reference navigation properties because it causes many side effects and/or improper behaviors (not only for seeding, but also eager/lazy/explicit data loading). Initializing collection navigation properties is arbitrary, but ok. Only reference navigation property initialization must be avoided. For more info, see EF codefirst : Should I initialize navigation properties? - quite old EF topic, but still applies.
If you are trying to resolve NRT warnings (as I guess), initializing with new is definitely not a proper way. One reason I don't like NRT is because it is forcing people to use "workarounds" for preventing compiler warnings, which in fact break the primary functionality. Specifically in EF Core, enabling NRT also changes the optional/required attribute of some properties, hence database column types (most noticeable for string properties/columns and reference navigations). You could read more about this in the Working with Nullable Reference Types topic in the official EF Core documentation, but in general I would just disable NRT for EF entity model classes.
The proper order is to set the "master data" first and then try to set the join table, as you would expect.
The defaulting
{get;set;} = new Something();
Could be the offending declaration, since any instance upon creation will have the relation JobFileType already set
I'm using Swagger-Net in my .NET 4.5.1 WebAPI project and one of my API calls is causing the Swagger UI to spin forever on load before coming back with the error below.
Specifically, I found that using [FromUri] in combination with a complex EF entity that has references to other entities ends up causing this.
[HttpPost]
public APIResponse CreateSchool([FromUri]School school)
{
// save school object to db
}
public partial class School : IAuditableEntity,IEntity
{
public School()
{
this.Affiliations = new HashSet<Affiliation>();
this.SchoolAccreditations = new HashSet<SchoolAccreditation>();
this.SchoolAdultRoles = new HashSet<SchoolAdultRole>();
this.SchoolCareOptions = new HashSet<SchoolCareOption>();
this.SchoolDailySessions = new HashSet<SchoolDailySession>();
this.SchoolEligibilityRequirements = new HashSet<SchoolEligibilityRequirement>();
// ...more hashsets
[DataMember]
public int SchoolID { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Name { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public bool Active { get; set; }
//...more properties
}
}
Is there a way to still use FromUri and the EF model? Or do I need to change my API call signature?
I'm trying to fetch (in disconnected way) an entity with its all related entities and then trying to update the entity. But I'm getting the following error:
Attaching an entity of type 'Feature' failed because another entity of the same type already has the same primary key value.
public class Person
{
public int PersonId { get; set; }
public string Personname { get; set }
public ICollection Addresses { get; set; }
}
public class Address
{
public int AddressId { get; set; }
public int PersonId { get; set; }
public string Line1 { get; set; }
public string City { get; set; }
public string State { get; set; }
public Person Person { get; set; }
public ICollection<Feature> Features { get; set; }
}
// Many to Many: Represented in database as AddressFeature (e.g Air Conditioning, Central Heating; User could select multiple features of a single address)
public class Feature
{
public int FeatureId { get; set; }
public string Featurename { get; set; }
public ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; } // Many-To-Many with Addresses
}
public Person GetCandidate(int id)
{
using (MyDbContext dbContext = new MyDbContext())
{
var person = dbContext.People.AsNoTracking().Where(x => x.PersonId == id);
person = person.Include(prop => prop.Addresses.Select(x => x.Country)).Include(prop => prop.Addresses.Select(x => x.Features));
return person.FirstOrDefault();
}
}
public void UpdateCandidate(Person newPerson)
{
Person existingPerson = GetPerson(person.Id); // Loading the existing candidate from database with ASNOTRACKING
dbContext.People.Attach(existingPerson); // This line is giving error
.....
.....
.....
}
Error:
Additional information: Attaching an entity of type 'Feature' failed because another entity of the same type already has the same primary key value.
It seems like (I may be wrong) GetCandidate is assigning every Feature within Person.Addresses a new instance. So, how could I modify the GetCandidate to make sure that the same instance (for same values) is bing assisgned to Person.Addresses --> Features.
Kindly suggest.
It seems like (I may be wrong) GetCandidate is assigning every Feature within Person.Addresses a new instance. So, how could I modify the GetCandidate to make sure that the same instance (for same values) is bing assisgned to Person.Addresses --> Features.
Since you are using a short lived DbContext for retrieving the data, all you need is to remove AsNoTracking(), thus allowing EF to use the context cache and consolidate the Feature entities. EF tracking serves different purposes. One is to allow consolidating the entity instances with the same PK which you are interested in this case, and the second is to detect the modifications in case you modify the entities and call SaveChanges(), which apparently you are not interested when using the context simply to retrieve the data. When you disable the tracking for a query, EF cannot use the cache, thus generates separate object instances.
What you really not want is to let EF create proxies which hold reference to the context used to obtain them and will cause issues when trying to attach to another context. I don't see virtual navigation properties in your models, so most likely EF will not create proxies, but in order to be absolutely sure, I would turn ProxyCreationEnabled off:
public Person GetCandidate(int id)
{
using (MyDbContext dbContext = new MyDbContext())
{
dbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
var person = dbContext.People.Where(x => x.PersonId == id);
person = person.Include(prop => prop.Addresses.Select(x => x.Country)).Include(prop => prop.Addresses.Select(x => x.Features));
return person.FirstOrDefault();
}
}
I have a trouble with EF (6.1.3)
I have created next classes (with many-to-many relationship):
public class Record
{
[Key]
public int RecordId { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Text { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags { get; set; }
}
public class Tag
{
[Key]
public int TagId { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Record> Records{ get; set; }
}
And method:
void AddTags()
{
Record[] records;
Tag[] tags;
using (var context = new AppDbContext())
{
records = context.Records.ToArray();
}//remove line to fix
tags = Enumerable.Range(0, 5).Select(x => new Tag()
{
Name = string.Format("Tag_{0}", x),
Records= records.Skip(x * 5).Take(5).ToArray()
}).ToArray();
using (var context = new AppDbContext()){ //remove line to fix
context.Tags.AddRange(tags);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
If I use two contexts, the records (which were added to created tags) will be duplicated. If I remove marked rows - problem disappears.
Is there any way to fix this problem without using the same context?
If you can, better reload entities or not detach them at all. Using multiple context instances in application is overall making things much more complicated.
The problem for you comes from the Entity Framework entity change tracker. When you load entitites from your DbContext and dispose that context, entities get detached from entity change tracker, and Entity Framework has no knowledge of any changes made to it.
After you reference detached entity by an attached entity, it (detached entity) immediately gets into entity change tracker, and it has no idea that this entity was loaded before. To give Entity Framework an idea that this detached entity comes from the database, you have to reattach it:
foreach (var record in records) {
dbContext.Entry(record).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
}
This way you will be able to use records to reference in other objects, but if you have any changes made to these records, then all these changes will go away. To make changes apply to database you have to change state to Added:
dbContext.Entry(record).State = EntityState.Modified;
Entity Framework uses your mappings to determine row in database to apply changes to, specifically using your Primary Key settings.
A couple examples:
public class Bird
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Color { get; set; }
}
public class Tree
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class BirdOnATree
{
[Column(Order = 0), Key, ForeignKey("Bird")]
public int BirdId { get; set; }
public Bird Bird { get; set; }
[Column(Order = 1), Key, ForeignKey("Tree")]
public int TreeId { get; set; }
public Tree Tree { get; set; }
public DateTime SittingSessionStartedAt { get; set; }
}
Here's a small entity structure so that you could see how it works. You can see that Bird and Tree have simple Key - Id. BirdOnATree is a many-to-many table for Bird-Tree pair with additional column SittingSessionStartedAt.
Here's the code for multiple contexts:
Bird bird;
using (var context = new TestDbContext())
{
bird = context.Birds.First();
}
using (var context = new TestDbContext())
{
var tree = context.Trees.First();
var newBirdOnAtree = context.BirdsOnTrees.Create();
newBirdOnAtree.Bird = bird;
newBirdOnAtree.Tree = tree;
newBirdOnAtree.SittingSessionStartedAt = DateTime.UtcNow;
context.BirdsOnTrees.Add(newBirdOnAtree);
context.SaveChanges();
}
In this case, bird was detached from the DB and not attached again. Entity Framework will account this entity as a new entity, which never existed in DB, even though Id property is set to point to existing row to database. To change this you just add this line to second DbContext right in the beginning:
context.Entry(bird).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
If this code is executed, it will not create new Bird entity in DB, but use existing instead.
Second example: instead of getting bird from the database, we create it by ourselves:
bird = new Bird
{
Id = 1,
Name = "Nightingale",
Color = "Gray"
}; // these data are different in DB
When executed, this code will also not create another bird entity, will make a reference to bird with Id = 1 in BirdOnATree table, and will not update bird entity with Id = 1. In fact you can put any data here, just use correct Id.
If we change our code here to make this detached entity update existing row in DB:
context.Entry(bird).State = EntityState.Modified;
This way, correct data will be inserted to table BirdOnATree, but also row with Id = 1 will be updated in table Bird to fit the data you provided in the application.
You can check this article about object state tracking:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/dd456848(v=vs.100).aspx
Overall, if you can avoid this, don't use object state tracking and related code. It might come to unwanted changes that are hard to find source for - fields are updated for entity when you don't expect them to, or are not updated when you expect it.
I had a class called Document, which I split into two entities, in order to separate an expensive binary field:
[Table("Document")]
public class Document
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
... other fields ...
[Required]
public virtual DocumentBinary DocumentBinary { get; set; }
}
[Table("Document")]
public class DocumentBinary
{
[Key, ForeignKey("Document")]
public int DocumentId { get; set; }
public Document Document { get; set; }
public byte[] DocumentData { get; set; }
}
So, everything works fine, both entities share the same database table and DocumentData is only loaded when it's needed.
However, when it comes to updating the Document entity, I get an error stating that 'DocumentBinary is required'.
When I remove the [Required] attribute from DocumentBinary virtual property, I get the following error:
The entity types 'Document' and 'DocumentBinary' cannot share table 'Documents' because they are not in the same type hierarchy or do not have a valid one to one foreign key relationship with matching primary keys between them.
I can obviously do something like:
var test = document.DocumentBinary;
before updating the document object:
documentRepository.Update(document);
This will then load the binary data on my request and save the changes without any issues, but the whole point is that I shouldn't need to do that.
This can be achieved using the fluent API. If you remove the data annotations and in your OnModelCreating add this, it should work.
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Document>().HasRequired(d => d.DocumentBinary).
WithRequiredDependent(db => db.Document);
}
I managed to resolve it by overriding my Update method in DocumentRepository:
public override void Update(Document document)
{
try
{
DataContext.Entry(document.DocumentBinary).State = EntityState.Modified; // added this line
DataContext.Entry(document).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
catch (System.Exception exception)
{
throw new EntityException("Failed to update document");
}
}
I know it probably does the same thing as me evaluating DocumentBinary by assigning it to 'test' variable, but it looks like a much cleaner solution.