How can I update a single property of a record without retrieving it first?
I'm asking in the context of EF Code First 4.1
Says I have a class User, mapping to table Users in Database:
class User
{
public int Id {get;set;}
[Required]
public string Name {get;set;}
public DateTime LastActivity {get;set;}
...
}
Now I want to update LastActivity of a user. I have user id. I can easily do so by querying the user record, set new value to LastActivity, then call SaveChanges(). But this would result in a redundant query.
I work around by using Attach method. But because EF throws a validation exception on Name if it's null, I set Name to a random string (will not be updated back to DB). But this doesn't seem a elegant solution:
using (var entities = new MyEntities())
{
User u = new User {Id = id, Name="this wont be updated" };
entities.Users.Attach(u);
u.LastActivity = DateTime.Now;
entities.SaveChanges();
}
I would be very appriciate if someone can provide me a better solution. And forgive me for any mistake as this is the first time I've asked a question on SO.
This is a problem of validation implementation. The validation is able to validate only a whole entity. It doesn't validate only modified properties as expected. Because of that the validation should be turned off in scenarios where you want to use incomplete dummy objects:
using (var entities = new MyEntities())
{
entities.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
User u = new User {Id = id, LastActivity = DateTime.Now };
entities.Users.Attach(u);
entities.Entry(user).Property(u => u.LastActivity).IsModified = true;
entities.SaveChanges();
}
This is obviously a problem if you want to use the same context for update of dummy objects and for update of whole entities where the validation should be used. The validation take place in SaveChanges so you can't say which objects should be validated and which don't.
I'm actually dealing with this right now. What I decided to do was override the ValidateEntity method in the DB context.
protected override DbEntityValidationResult ValidateEntity(DbEntityEntry entityEntry, IDictionary<object, object> items)
{
var result = base.ValidateEntity(entityEntry, items);
var errors = new List<DbValidationError>();
foreach (var error in result.ValidationErrors)
{
if (entityEntry.Property(error.PropertyName).IsModified)
{
errors.Add(error);
}
}
return new DbEntityValidationResult(entityEntry, errors);
}
I'm sure there's some holes that can be poked in it, but it seemed better than the alternatives.
You can try a sort of hack:
context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("update [dbo].[Users] set [LastActivity] = #p1 where [Id] = #p2",
new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlParameter("p1", DateTime.Now),
new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlParameter("p2", id));
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 am writing a web application, such that I get different objects back from the web that need to be either updated or added to the database. On top of this, I need to check that the owner is not modified. Since a hacker could potentially get an account and send an update to modify the foreign key to the user model. I don't want to have to manually code all of these methods, instead I want to make a simple generic call.
Maybe something as simple as this
ctx.OrderLines.AddOrUpdateSet(order.OrderLines, a => a.Order)
Based on old persisted records that have a foreign key to Order, and on the new incoming records.
Delete old records that are not on the new records list.
Add new records that are not on the old records list.
Update new records that exist on both lists.
ctx.Entry(orderLine).State=EntityState.Deleted;
...
ctx.Entry(orderLine).State=EntityState.Added;
...
ctx.Entry(orderLine).State=EntityState.Modified;
This gets a bit complicated when the old record is loaded to verify that ownership did not change. I get an error if I don't do.
oldorder.OrderLines.remove(oldOrderLine); //for deletes
oldorder.OrderLines.add(oldOrderLine); //for adds
ctx.Entry(header).CurrentValues.SetValues(header); //for modifications
With Entity Framework 5 there is a new extension function called AddOrUpdate. And there was a very interesting (please read) blog entry on how to create this method before it was added.
I'm not sure if this is too much to ask as a question in StackOverflow, any clues on how to approach the problem may be sufficient. Here are my thoughts so far:
a) leverage AddOrUpdate for some of the functionality.
b) create a secondary context hoping to avoid loading order into the context and avoid extra calls.
c) Set the state of all the saved objects to initially deleted.
Since you have linked to this question from my own question, I thought I'd throw in some newly-aquired experience with Entity Framework for me.
To achieve a common save method in my generic repository with Entity Framework, I do this. (Please note that the Context is a member of my repository, as I am implementing the Unit of Work pattern as well)
public class EFRepository<TEntity> : IRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
internal readonly AwesomeContext Context;
internal readonly DbSet<TEntity> DbSet;
public EFRepository(AwesomeContext context)
{
if (context == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context");
Context = context;
DbSet = context.Set<TEntity>();
}
// Rest of implementation removed for brevity
public void Save(TEntity entity)
{
var entry = Context.Entry(entity);
if (entry.State == EntityState.Detached)
DbSet.Add(entity);
else entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
}
}
Honestly, I can't tell you why this works, because I just kept changing the state conditions - however I do have unit (integration) tests to prove that it works. Hopefully someone more into EF than myself can shed some light on this.
Regarding the "cascading updates", I was curious myself as if it would work using the Unit of Work pattern (my question I linked to was when I did not know it existed, and my repositories would basically create a unit of work whenever I wanted to save/get/delete, which is bad), so I threw in a test case in a simple relational DB. Here is a diagram to give you an idea.
IMPORTANT In order for test case number 2 to work, you need to make your POCO reference properties virtual, in order for EF to provide lazy loading.
The repository implementation is just derived from the generic EFRepository<TEntity> as shown above, so I'll leave out that implementation.
These are my test cases, both pass.
public class EFResourceGroupFacts
{
[Fact]
public void Saving_new_resource_will_cascade_properly()
{
// Recreate a fresh database and add some dummy data.
SetupTestCase();
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
var cultureRepo = new EFCultureRepository(ctx);
var resourceRepo = new EFResourceRepository(cultureRepo, ctx);
var existingCulture = cultureRepo.Get(1); // First and only culture.
var groupToAdd = new ResourceGroup("Added Group");
var resourceToAdd = new Resource(existingCulture,"New Resource", "Resource to add to existing group.",groupToAdd);
// Verify we got a single resource group.
Assert.Equal(1,ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
// Saving the resource should also add the group.
resourceRepo.Save(resourceToAdd);
ctx.SaveChanges();
// Verify the group was added without explicitly saving it.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
}
// try creating a new Unit of Work to really verify it has been persisted..
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
Assert.DoesNotThrow(() => ctx.ResourceGroups.First(rg => rg.Name == "Added Group"));
}
}
[Fact]
public void Changing_existing_resources_group_saves_properly()
{
SetupTestCase();
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
ctx.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
var cultureRepo = new EFCultureRepository(ctx);
var resourceRepo = new EFResourceRepository(cultureRepo, ctx);
// This resource already has a group.
var existingResource = resourceRepo.Get(2);
Assert.NotNull(existingResource.ResourceGroup); // IMPORTANT: Property must be virtual!
// Verify there is only one resource group in the datastore.
Assert.Equal(1,ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
existingResource.ResourceGroup = new ResourceGroup("I am implicitly added to the database. How cool is that?");
// Make sure there are 2 resources in the datastore before saving.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.Resources.Count());
resourceRepo.Save(existingResource);
ctx.SaveChanges();
// Make sure there are STILL only 2 resources in the datastore AFTER saving.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.Resources.Count());
// Make sure the new group was added.
Assert.Equal(2,ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
// Refetch from store, verify relationship.
existingResource = resourceRepo.Get(2);
Assert.Equal(2,existingResource.ResourceGroup.Id);
// let's change the group to an existing group
existingResource.ResourceGroup = ctx.ResourceGroups.First();
resourceRepo.Save(existingResource);
ctx.SaveChanges();
// Assert no change in groups.
Assert.Equal(2, ctx.ResourceGroups.Count());
// Refetch from store, verify relationship.
existingResource = resourceRepo.Get(2);
Assert.Equal(1, existingResource.ResourceGroup.Id);
}
}
private void SetupTestCase()
{
// Delete everything first. Database.SetInitializer does not work very well for me.
using (var ctx = new LocalizationContext("Localization.CascadeTest"))
{
ctx.Database.Delete();
ctx.Database.Create();
var culture = new Culture("en-US", "English");
var resourceGroup = new ResourceGroup("Existing Group");
var resource = new Resource(culture, "Existing Resource 1",
"This resource will already exist when starting the test. Initially it has no group.");
var resourceWithGroup = new Resource(culture, "Exising Resource 2",
"Same for this resource, except it has a group.",resourceGroup);
ctx.Cultures.Add(culture);
ctx.ResourceGroups.Add(resourceGroup);
ctx.Resources.Add(resource);
ctx.Resources.Add(resourceWithGroup);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
It was interesting to learn this, as I was not sure if it would work.
After working on this for a while I found an opensource project called GraphDiff here is it's blog entry 'introducing graphdiff for entity framework code first – allowing automated updates of a graph of detached entities'. I only began using it but it looks impressive. And it does solve the problem of issuing update/delete/insert for Many to One relationships. It actually generalizes the problem to graphs and allows arbitrary nesting.
Here is the generic method I concocted. It does use AddOrUpdate from the System.Data.Entity.Migrations namespace. Which may be reloading records from the db, I'll be checking on that later. The usage is
ctx.OrderLines.AddOrUpdateSet(l => l.orderId == neworder.Id,
l => l.Id, order.orderLines);
Here is the code:
public static class UpdateExtensions
{
public static void AddOrUpdateSet<TEntity>(this IDbSet<TEntity> set, Expression<Func<TEntity, bool>> predicate,
Func<TEntity, int> selector, IEnumerable<TEntity> newRecords) where TEntity : class
{
List<TEntity> oldRecords = set.Where(predicate).ToList();
IEnumerable<int> keys = newRecords.Select(selector);
foreach (TEntity newRec in newRecords)
set.AddOrUpdate(newRec);
oldRecords.FindAll(old => !keys.Contains(selector(old))).ForEach(detail => set.Remove(detail));
}
}
I want to use EF DbContext/POCO entities in a detached manner, i.e. retrieve a hierarchy of entities from my business tier, make some changes, then send the entire hierarchy back to the business tier to persist back to the database. Each BLL call uses a different instance of the DbContext. To test this I wrote some code to simulate such an environment.
First I retrieve a Customer plus related Orders and OrderLines:-
Customer customer;
using (var context = new TestContext())
{
customer = context.Customers.Include("Orders.OrderLines").SingleOrDefault(o => o.Id == 1);
}
Next I add a new Order with two OrderLines:-
var newOrder = new Order { OrderDate = DateTime.Now, OrderDescription = "Test" };
newOrder.OrderLines.Add(new OrderLine { ProductName = "foo", Order = newOrder, OrderId = newOrder.Id });
newOrder.OrderLines.Add(new OrderLine { ProductName = "bar", Order = newOrder, OrderId = newOrder.Id });
customer.Orders.Add(newOrder);
newOrder.Customer = customer;
newOrder.CustomerId = customer.Id;
Finally I persist the changes (using a new context):-
using (var context = new TestContext())
{
context.Customers.Attach(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
}
I realise this last part is incomplete, as no doubt I'll need to change the state of the new entities before calling SaveChanges(). Do I Add or Attach the customer? Which entities states will I have to change?
Before I can get to this stage, running the above code throws an Exception:
An object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager.
It seems to stem from not explicitly setting the ID of the two OrderLine entities, so both default to 0. I thought it was fine to do this as EF would handle things automatically. Am I doing something wrong?
Also, working in this "detached" manner, there seems to be an lot of work required to set up the relationships - I have to add the new order entity to the customer.Orders collection, set the new order's Customer property, and its CustomerId property. Is this the correct approach or is there a simpler way?
Would I be better off looking at self-tracking entities? I'd read somewhere that they are being deprecated, or at least being discouraged in favour of POCOs.
You basically have 2 options:
A) Optimistic.
You can proceed pretty close to the way you're proceeding now, and just attach everything as Modified and hope. The code you're looking for instead of .Attach() is:
context.Entry(customer).State = EntityState.Modified;
Definitely not intuitive. This weird looking call attaches the detached (or newly constructed by you) object, as Modified. Source: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/01/29/using-dbcontext-in-ef-feature-ctp5-part-4-add-attach-and-entity-states.aspx
If you're unsure whether an object has been added or modified you can use the last segment's example:
context.Entry(customer).State = customer.Id == 0 ?
EntityState.Added :
EntityState.Modified;
You need to take these actions on all of the objects being added/modified, so if this object is complex and has other objects that need to be updated in the DB via FK relationships, you need to set their EntityState as well.
Depending on your scenario you can make these kinds of don't-care writes cheaper by using a different Context variation:
public class MyDb : DbContext
{
. . .
public static MyDb CheapWrites()
{
var db = new MyDb();
db.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false;
db.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
return db;
}
}
using(var db = MyDb.CheapWrites())
{
db.Entry(customer).State = customer.Id == 0 ?
EntityState.Added :
EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
}
You're basically just disabling some extra calls EF makes on your behalf that you're ignoring the results of anyway.
B) Pessimistic. You can actually query the DB to verify the data hasn't changed/been added since you last picked it up, then update it if it's safe.
var existing = db.Customers.Find(customer.Id);
// Some logic here to decide whether updating is a good idea, like
// verifying selected values haven't changed, then
db.Entry(existing).CurrentValues.SetValues(customer);
I have this entity, want to update using entityframework
EmployeeModel employee = new EmployeeModel
{
Id = 1000, //This one must
FirstName = modifiedValue,
Email = modifiedValue,
LastName = originalValue,
Phone = originalValue
};
Code to update
_db.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(employee, EntityState.Modified);
_db.SaveChanges();
This is the SQL statement got once updated
Update Employee set Id=1138,FirstName='modifiedValue',Email='modifiedValue',LastName= 'OriginalValue',phone='originalValue' where Id=1138
But I am expecting this
Update Employee set FirstName='modifiedValue', Email='modifiedValue' where Id=1138.
I dont know what I am missing here. Please let me know.
This problem is common when dealing with DTOs. An employee entity is fetched from the database, mapped to a DTO and sent over the wire. The client then modifies this DTO and sends it back to the server.
When you touch (set) a property on an EF entity, EF will assume that the value has been changed. Even if the old value and the new value are exactly the same.
The same problem occurs when you map the DTO to a new Entity and attach it to EF and updating its status to 'Modified'.
Using AutoMapper:
// This will result in the full update statement
var employee = AutoMapper.Mapper.Map<EmployeeDto, Employee>(dto);
// This will result in a smaller update statement (only actual changes)
var employee = dbContext.Employees.Find(dto.Id);
AutoMapper.Mapper.Map(dto, employee);
Or, manually (I would avoid doing this, but just for the sake of completeness):
// This will result in a smaller update statement (only actual changes)
var employee = dbContext.Employees.Find(dto.Id);
if (employee.Email != dto.Email )
employee.Email = dto.Email;
There are probably some other ways for dealing with this problem... but using AutoMapper together with Entity Framework correctly is definitely one of the easiest ways.
This is the solution I got
var entity = _db.CreateObjectSet<Employee>();
entity.Detach(employee);
entity.Attach(employee);
foreach (string modifiedPro in employeeModel.ModifiedProperties){
_db.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(employee).SetModifiedProperty(modifiedPro);}
_db.SaveChanges();
Only modified values in the sql update statement
Update Employee set FirstName='modifiedValue', Email='modifiedValue' where Id=1138.
If anybody knows better answer than this, Please post your suggestions
You can try this way
public update(Person model)
{
// Here model is model return from form on post
var oldobj = db.Person.where(x=>x.ID = model.ID).SingleOrDefault();
var UpdatedObj = (Person) Entity.CheckUpdateObject(oldobj, model);
db.Entry(oldobj).CurrentValues.SetValues(UpdatedObj);
}
public static object CheckUpdateObject(object originalObj, object updateObj)
{
foreach (var property in updateObj.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (property.GetValue(updateObj, null) == null)
{
property.SetValue(updateObj,originalObj.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name)
.GetValue(originalObj, null));
}
}
return updateObj;
}
It seems to me that I have to retrieve an object before I delete it with entity framework like below
var customer = context.Customers.First(c => c.Id == 1);
context.DeleteObject(customer);
context.Savechanges();
So I need to hit database twice. Is there a easier way?
In Entity Framework 6 the delete action is Remove. Here is an example
Customer customer = new Customer () { Id = id };
context.Customers.Attach(customer);
context.Customers.Remove(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
The same as #Nix with a small change to be strongly typed:
If you don't want to query for it just create an entity, and then delete it.
Customer customer = new Customer () { Id = id };
context.Customers.Attach(customer);
context.Customers.DeleteObject(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
Similar question here.
With Entity Framework there is EntityFramework-Plus (extensions library).
Available on NuGet. Then you can write something like:
// DELETE all users which has been inactive for 2 years
ctx.Users.Where(x => x.LastLoginDate < DateTime.Now.AddYears(-2))
.Delete();
It is also useful for bulk deletes.
If you dont want to query for it just create an entity, and then delete it.
Customer customer = new Customer() { Id = 1 } ;
context.AttachTo("Customers", customer);
context.DeleteObject(customer);
context.Savechanges();
I am using the following code in one of my projects:
using (var _context = new DBContext(new DbContextOptions<DBContext>()))
{
try
{
_context.MyItems.Remove(new MyItem() { MyItemId = id });
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
if (!_context.MyItems.Any(i => i.MyItemId == id))
{
return NotFound();
}
else
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
This way, it will query the database twice only if an exception occurs when trying to remove the item with the specified ID. Then if the item is not found, it returns a meaningful message; otherwise, it just throws the exception back (you can handle this in a way more fit to your case using different catch blocks for different exception types, add more custom checks using if blocks etc.).
[I am using this code in a MVC .Net Core/.Net Core project with Entity Framework Core.]
This answer is actually taken from Scott Allen's course titled ASP.NET MVC 5 Fundamentals. I thought I'd share because I think it is slightly simpler and more intuitive than any of the answers here already. Also note according to Scott Allen and other trainings I've done, find method is an optimized way to retrieve a resource from database that can use caching if it already has been retrieved. In this code, collection refers to a DBSet of objects. Object can be any generic object type.
var object = context.collection.Find(id);
context.collection.Remove(object);
context.SaveChanges();
dwkd's answer mostly worked for me in Entity Framework core, except when I saw this exception:
InvalidOperationException: The instance of entity type 'Customer' cannot
be tracked because another instance with the same key value for {'Id'}
is already being tracked. When attaching existing entities, ensure
that only one entity instance with a given key value is attached.
Consider using 'DbContextOptionsBuilder.EnableSensitiveDataLogging' to
see the conflicting key values.
To avoid the exception, I updated the code:
Customer customer = context.Customers.Local.First(c => c.Id == id);
if (customer == null) {
customer = new Customer () { Id = id };
context.Customers.Attach(customer);
}
context.Customers.Remove(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
A smaller version (when compared to previous ones):
var customer = context.Find(id);
context.Delete(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
In EF Core, if you don't care if the object exists or not, and you just care that it will not be in the DB, the simplest would be:
context.Remove(new Customer(Id: id)); // adds the object in "Deleted" state
context.SaveChanges(); // commits the removal
You don't really need Attach() - it adds the object to the change tracker in the Unchanged state and Remove() adds the object to the tracker in the Deleted state. The most important thing, however, is that you do only one roundtrip to the backend.
Raw sql query is fastest way I suppose
public void DeleteCustomer(int id)
{
using (var context = new Context())
{
const string query = "DELETE FROM [dbo].[Customers] WHERE [id]={0}";
var rows = context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(query,id);
// rows >= 1 - count of deleted rows,
// rows = 0 - nothing to delete.
}
}
From official documentation (and the most efficient one I have found so far):
Student studentToDelete = new Student() { ID = id };
_context.Entry(studentToDelete).State = EntityState.Deleted;
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
Easier and more understandable version.
var customer = context.Find<Customer>(id);
context.Remove(customer);
context.SaveChanges();
Since Entity Framework Core 7 you can use this:
await context.Customers.Where(c => c.Id == 1).ExecuteDeleteAsync();