I have my entity defined like this:
public class Entity : BaseModel // Has the already ID defined
{
private int? companyId;
public Company? Company { get; set; }
public int? CompanyId {
get => this.companyId == 0 ? null : this.companyId; // I tried this for debugging purposes to force this value to "null" -> made no difference
set => this.companyId = value;
}
}
public class Company : BaseModel // Has the already ID defined
{
public IEnumerable<Entity> Entities { get; set; } = new List<Entity>();
}
Anyway, if I set the CompanyId to null, my DB throws an exception with the message: "FOREIGN KEY constraint failed". If the CompanyId is set to, e.g. 123, the relationship is resolved accordingly.
I mean, it makes sense, that EF cannot find null in my DB, but how do I want to set an optional value otherwise? I am using code first annotations only, hence my OnModelCreating of my context is completely empty.
How are you loading the entities in the first place? Are you loading an Entity by ID and trying to dis-associate it from a company, or have you loaded a company with it's entities and trying to remove one association?
Normally when working with relations where you have navigation properties, you want to de-associate them (or delete them) via the navigation properties, not the FK properties. For instance if loading a company and wanting to de-associate one of the entities you should eager-load the entities then remove the desired one from the collection:
var company = _context.Companies.Include(c => c.Entitites).Single(c => c.Id == companyId);
var entityToRemove = company.Entities.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id == entityId);
if(entityToRemove != null)
company.Entities.Remove(entityToRemove);
_context.SaveChanges();
Provided that the relationship between Company and Entity is set up properly as an optional HasMany then provided these proxies are loaded, EF should work out to set the entityToRemove's FK to null.
If you want to do it from the Entity side:
var entityToRemove = _context.Entities.Include(e => e.Company).Single(e => e.Id == entityId);
entityToRemove.Company = null;
_context.SaveChanges();
That too should de-associate the entities. If these don't work then it's possible that your mapping is set up for a required relationship, though I am pulling this from memory so I might need to fire up an example to verify. :) You also should be checking for any code that might set that CompanyId to 0 when attempting to remove one, whether that might be happening due to some mapping or deserialization. Weird behaviour like that can occur when entities are passed around in a detached state or deserialized into controller methods. (which should be avoided)
Update: Code like this can be very dangerous and lead to unexpected problems like what you are encountering:
public virtual async Task<bool> Update(TModel entity)
{
Context.Update(entity);
await Context.SaveChangesAsync();
return true;
}
Update() is typically used for detached entities, and it will automatically treat all values in the entity as Modified. If model was already an entity tracked by the Context (and the context is set up for change tracking) then it is pretty much unnecessary. However, something in the calling chain or wherever has constructed the model (i.e. Entity) has set the nullable FK to 0 instead of #null. This could have been deserialized from a Form etc. in a view and sent to a Controller as an integer value based on a default for a removed selection. Ideally entity classes should not be used for this form of data transfer from view to controller or the like, instead using a POCO view model or DTO. To correct the behaviour as your code currently is, you could try the following:
public async Task<bool> UpdateEntity(Entity entity)
{
var dbEntity = Context.Set<Entity>().Include(x => x.Customer).Single(x => x.Id == entityId);
if (!Object.ReferenceEquals(entity, dbEntity))
{ // entity is a detached representation so copy values across to dbEntity.
// TODO: copy values from entity to dbEntity
if(!entity.CustomerId.HasValue || entity.CustomerId.Value == 0)
dbEntity.Customer = null;
}
await Context.SaveChangesAsync();
return true;
}
In this case we load the entity from the DbContext. If this method was called with an entity tracked by the DbContext, the dbEntity would be the same reference as entity. In this case with change tracking the Customer/CustomerId reference should have been removed. We don't need to set entity state or call Update. SaveChanges should persist the change. If instead the entity was a detached copy deserialized, (likely the case based on that 0 value) the reference would be different. In this case, the allowed values in the modified entity should be copied across to dbEntity, then we can inspect the CustomerId in that detached entity for #null or 0, and if so, remove the Customer reference from dbEntity before saving.
The caveats here are:
This won't work as a pure Generic implementation. To update an "Entity" class we need knowledge of these relationships like Customer so this data service, repository, or what-have-you implementation needs to be concrete and non-generic. It can extend a Generic base class for common functionality but we cannot rely on a purely Generic solution. (Generic methods work where implementation is identical across supported classes.)
This also means removing that attempt at trying to handle Zero in the Entity class. It should just be:
public class Entity : BaseModel
{
public Company? Company { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("Company")]
public int? CompanyId { get; set; }
// ...
}
Marking Foreign Keys explicitly is a good practice to avoid surprises when you eventually find yourself needing to break conventions that EF accommodates in simple scenarios.
I am getting this error when I GetById() on an entity and then set the collection of child entities to my new list which comes from the MVC view.
The operation failed: The
relationship could not be changed
because one or more of the foreign-key
properties is non-nullable. When a
change is made to a relationship, the
related foreign-key property is set to
a null value. If the foreign-key does
not support null values, a new
relationship must be defined, the
foreign-key property must be assigned
another non-null value, or the
unrelated object must be deleted.
I don't quite understand this line:
The relationship could not be changed
because one or more of the foreign-key
properties is non-nullable.
Why would I change the relationship between 2 entities? It should remain the same throughout the lifetime of the whole application.
The code the exception occurs on is simple assigning modified child classes in a collection to the existing parent class. This would hopefully cater for removal of child classes, addition of new ones and modifications. I would have thought Entity Framework handles this.
The lines of code can be distilled to:
var thisParent = _repo.GetById(1);
thisParent.ChildItems = modifiedParent.ChildItems();
_repo.Save();
You should delete old child items thisParent.ChildItems one by one manually. Entity Framework doesn't do that for you. It finally cannot decide what you want to do with the old child items - if you want to throw them away or if you want to keep and assign them to other parent entities. You must tell Entity Framework your decision. But one of these two decisions you HAVE to make since the child entities cannot live alone without a reference to any parent in the database (due to the foreign key constraint). That's basically what the exception says.
Edit
What I would do if child items could be added, updated and deleted:
public void UpdateEntity(ParentItem parent)
{
// Load original parent including the child item collection
var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
.Where(p => p.ID == parent.ID)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems)
.SingleOrDefault();
// We assume that the parent is still in the DB and don't check for null
// Update scalar properties of parent,
// can be omitted if we don't expect changes of the scalar properties
var parentEntry = _dbContext.Entry(originalParent);
parentEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(parent);
foreach (var childItem in parent.ChildItems)
{
var originalChildItem = originalParent.ChildItems
.Where(c => c.ID == childItem.ID && c.ID != 0)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Is original child item with same ID in DB?
if (originalChildItem != null)
{
// Yes -> Update scalar properties of child item
var childEntry = _dbContext.Entry(originalChildItem);
childEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(childItem);
}
else
{
// No -> It's a new child item -> Insert
childItem.ID = 0;
originalParent.ChildItems.Add(childItem);
}
}
// Don't consider the child items we have just added above.
// (We need to make a copy of the list by using .ToList() because
// _dbContext.ChildItems.Remove in this loop does not only delete
// from the context but also from the child collection. Without making
// the copy we would modify the collection we are just interating
// through - which is forbidden and would lead to an exception.)
foreach (var originalChildItem in
originalParent.ChildItems.Where(c => c.ID != 0).ToList())
{
// Are there child items in the DB which are NOT in the
// new child item collection anymore?
if (!parent.ChildItems.Any(c => c.ID == originalChildItem.ID))
// Yes -> It's a deleted child item -> Delete
_dbContext.ChildItems.Remove(originalChildItem);
}
_dbContext.SaveChanges();
}
Note: This is not tested. It's assuming that the child item collection is of type ICollection. (I usually have IList and then the code looks a bit different.) I've also stripped away all repository abstractions to keep it simple.
I don't know if that is a good solution, but I believe that some kind of hard work along these lines must be done to take care of all kinds of changes in the navigation collection. I would also be happy to see an easier way of doing it.
The reason you're facing this is due to the difference between composition and aggregation.
In composition, the child object is created when the parent is created and is destroyed when its parent is destroyed. So its lifetime is controlled by its parent. e.g. A blog post and its comments. If a post is deleted, its comments should be deleted. It doesn't make sense to have comments for a post that doesn't exist. Same for orders and order items.
In aggregation, the child object can exist irrespective of its parent. If the parent is destroyed, the child object can still exist, as it may be added to a different parent later. e.g.: the relationship between a playlist and the songs in that playlist. If the playlist is deleted, the songs shouldn't be deleted. They may be added to a different playlist.
The way Entity Framework differentiates aggregation and composition relationships is as follows:
For composition: it expects the child object to a have a composite primary key (ParentID, ChildID). This is by design as the IDs of the children should be within the scope of their parents.
For aggregation: it expects the foreign key property in the child object to be nullable.
So, the reason you're having this issue is because of how you've set your primary key in your child table. It should be composite, but it's not. So, Entity Framework sees this association as aggregation, which means, when you remove or clear the child objects, it's not going to delete the child records. It'll simply remove the association and sets the corresponding foreign key column to NULL (so those child records can later be associated with a different parent). Since your column does not allow NULL, you get the exception you mentioned.
Solutions:
1- If you have a strong reason for not wanting to use a composite key, you need to delete the child objects explicitly. And this can be done simpler than the solutions suggested earlier:
context.Children.RemoveRange(parent.Children);
2- Otherwise, by setting the proper primary key on your child table, your code will look more meaningful:
parent.Children.Clear();
This is a very big problem. What actually happens in your code is this:
You load Parent from the database and get an attached entity
You replace its child collection with new collection of detached children
You save changes but during this operation all children are considered as added becasue EF didn't know about them till this time. So EF tries to set null to foreign key of old children and insert all new children => duplicate rows.
Now the solution really depends on what you want to do and how would you like to do it?
If you are using ASP.NET MVC you can try to use UpdateModel or TryUpdateModel.
If you want just update existing children manually, you can simply do something like:
foreach (var child in modifiedParent.ChildItems)
{
context.Childs.Attach(child);
context.Entry(child).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
context.SaveChanges();
Attaching is actually not needed (setting the state to Modified will also attach the entity) but I like it because it makes the process more obvious.
If you want to modify existing, delete existing and insert new childs you must do something like:
var parent = context.Parents.GetById(1); // Make sure that childs are loaded as well
foreach(var child in modifiedParent.ChildItems)
{
var attachedChild = FindChild(parent, child.Id);
if (attachedChild != null)
{
// Existing child - apply new values
context.Entry(attachedChild).CurrentValues.SetValues(child);
}
else
{
// New child
// Don't insert original object. It will attach whole detached graph
parent.ChildItems.Add(child.Clone());
}
}
// Now you must delete all entities present in parent.ChildItems but missing
// in modifiedParent.ChildItems
// ToList should make copy of the collection because we can't modify collection
// iterated by foreach
foreach(var child in parent.ChildItems.ToList())
{
var detachedChild = FindChild(modifiedParent, child.Id);
if (detachedChild == null)
{
parent.ChildItems.Remove(child);
context.Childs.Remove(child);
}
}
context.SaveChanges();
I found this answer much more helpful for the same error.
It seems that EF does not like it when you Remove, it prefers Delete.
You can delete a collection of records attached to a record like this.
order.OrderDetails.ToList().ForEach(s => db.Entry(s).State = EntityState.Deleted);
In the example, all of the Detail records attached to an Order have their State set to Delete. (In preparation to Add back updated Details, as part of an Order update)
I've no idea why the other two answers are so popular!
I believe you were right in assuming the ORM framework should handle it - after all, that is what it promises to deliver. Otherwise your domain model gets corrupted by persistence concerns. NHibernate manages this happily if you setup the cascade settings correctly. In Entity Framework it is also possible, they just expect you to follow better standards when setting up your database model, especially when they have to infer what cascading should be done:
You have to define the parent - child relationship correctly by using an "identifying relationship".
If you do this, Entity Framework knows the child object is identified by the parent, and therefore it must be a "cascade-delete-orphans" situation.
Other than the above, you might need to (from NHibernate experience)
thisParent.ChildItems.Clear();
thisParent.ChildItems.AddRange(modifiedParent.ChildItems);
instead of replacing the list entirely.
UPDATE
#Slauma's comment reminded me that detached entities are another part of the overall problem. To solve that, you can take the approach of using a custom model binder that constructs your models by attempting to load it from the context. This blog post shows an example of what I mean.
If you are using AutoMapper with Entity Framework on the same class, you might hit this problem. For instance if your class is
class A
{
public ClassB ClassB { get; set; }
public int ClassBId { get; set; }
}
AutoMapper.Map<A, A>(input, destination);
This will try to copy both properties. In this case, ClassBId is non Nullable. Since AutoMapper will copy destination.ClassB = input.ClassB; this will cause a problem.
Set your AutoMapper to Ignore ClassB property.
cfg.CreateMap<A, A>()
.ForMember(m => m.ClassB, opt => opt.Ignore()); // We use the ClassBId
I had same problem, but I knew it had worked OK in other cases, so I reduced the problem to this:
parent.OtherRelatedItems.Clear(); //this worked OK on SaveChanges() - items were being deleted from DB
parent.ProblematicItems.Clear(); // this was causing the mentioned exception on SaveChanges()
OtherRelatedItems had a composite Primary Key (parentId + some local column) and worked OK
ProblematicItems had their own single-column Primary Key, and the parentId was only a FK. This was causing the exception after Clear().
All I had to do was to make the ParentId a part of composite PK to indicate that the children can't exist without a parent. I used DB-first model, added the PK and marked the parentId column as EntityKey (so, I had to update it both in DB and EF - not sure if EF alone would be enough).
Once you think about it, it's a very elegant distinction that EF uses to decide if children "make sense" without a parent (in this case Clear() won't delete them and throw exception unless you set the ParentId to something else/special), or - like in the original question - we expect the items to be deleted once they are removed from the parent.
I just had the same error.
I have two tables with a parent child relationship, but I configured a "on delete cascade" on the foreign key column in the table definition of the child table.
So when I manually delete the parent row (via SQL) in the database it will automatically delete the child rows.
However this did not work in EF, the error described in this thread showed up.
The reason for this was, that in my entity data model (edmx file) the properties of the association between the parent and the child table were not correct.
The End1 OnDelete option was configured to be none ("End1" in my model is the end which has a multiplicity of 1).
I manually changed the End1 OnDelete option to Cascade and than it worked.
I do not know why EF is not able to pick this up, when I update the model from the database (I have a database first model).
For completeness, this is how my code to delete looks like:
public void Delete(int id)
{
MyType myObject = _context.MyTypes.Find(id);
_context.MyTypes.Remove(myObject);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
If I hadn´t a cascade delete defined, I would have to delete the child rows manually before deleting the parent row.
This happens because the Child Entity is marked as Modified instead of Deleted.
And the modification that EF does to the Child Entity when parent.Remove(child) is executed, is simply setting the reference to its parent to null.
You can check the child's EntityState by typing the following code into Visual Studio's Immediate Window when the exception occurs, after executing SaveChanges():
_context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries(System.Data.EntityState.Modified).ElementAt(X).Entity
where X should be replaced by the deleted Entity.
If you don't have access to the ObjectContext to execute _context.ChildEntity.Remove(child), you can solve this issue by making the foreign key a part of the primary key on the child table.
Parent
________________
| PK IdParent |
| Name |
|________________|
Child
________________
| PK IdChild |
| PK,FK IdParent |
| Name |
|________________|
This way, if you execute parent.Remove(child), EF will correctly mark the Entity as Deleted.
This type of solution did the trick for me:
Parent original = db.Parent.SingleOrDefault<Parent>(t => t.ID == updated.ID);
db.Childs.RemoveRange(original.Childs);
updated.Childs.ToList().ForEach(c => original.Childs.Add(c));
db.Entry<Parent>(original).CurrentValues.SetValues(updated);
Its important to say that this deletes all the records and insert them again.
But for my case (less then 10) it´s ok.
I hope it helps.
I ran into this problem today and wanted to share my solution. In my case, the solution was to delete the Child items before getting the Parent from the database.
Previously I was doing it like in the code below. I will then get the same error listed in this question.
var Parent = GetParent(parentId);
var children = Parent.Children;
foreach (var c in children )
{
Context.Children.Remove(c);
}
Context.SaveChanges();
What worked for me, is to get the children items first, using the parentId (foreign key) and then delete those items. Then I can get the Parent from the database and at that point, it should not have any children items anymore and I can add new children items.
var children = GetChildren(parentId);
foreach (var c in children )
{
Context.Children.Remove(c);
}
Context.SaveChanges();
var Parent = GetParent(parentId);
Parent.Children = //assign new entities/items here
You must manually clear the ChildItems collection and append new items into it:
thisParent.ChildItems.Clear();
thisParent.ChildItems.AddRange(modifiedParent.ChildItems);
After that you can call DeleteOrphans extension method which will handle with orphaned entities (it must be called between DetectChanges and SaveChanges methods).
public static class DbContextExtensions
{
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary< EntityType, ReadOnlyDictionary< string, NavigationProperty>> s_navPropMappings = new ConcurrentDictionary< EntityType, ReadOnlyDictionary< string, NavigationProperty>>();
public static void DeleteOrphans( this DbContext source )
{
var context = ((IObjectContextAdapter)source).ObjectContext;
foreach (var entry in context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntries(EntityState.Modified))
{
var entityType = entry.EntitySet.ElementType as EntityType;
if (entityType == null)
continue;
var navPropMap = s_navPropMappings.GetOrAdd(entityType, CreateNavigationPropertyMap);
var props = entry.GetModifiedProperties().ToArray();
foreach (var prop in props)
{
NavigationProperty navProp;
if (!navPropMap.TryGetValue(prop, out navProp))
continue;
var related = entry.RelationshipManager.GetRelatedEnd(navProp.RelationshipType.FullName, navProp.ToEndMember.Name);
var enumerator = related.GetEnumerator();
if (enumerator.MoveNext() && enumerator.Current != null)
continue;
entry.Delete();
break;
}
}
}
private static ReadOnlyDictionary<string, NavigationProperty> CreateNavigationPropertyMap( EntityType type )
{
var result = type.NavigationProperties
.Where(v => v.FromEndMember.RelationshipMultiplicity == RelationshipMultiplicity.Many)
.Where(v => v.ToEndMember.RelationshipMultiplicity == RelationshipMultiplicity.One || (v.ToEndMember.RelationshipMultiplicity == RelationshipMultiplicity.ZeroOrOne && v.FromEndMember.GetEntityType() == v.ToEndMember.GetEntityType()))
.Select(v => new { NavigationProperty = v, DependentProperties = v.GetDependentProperties().Take(2).ToArray() })
.Where(v => v.DependentProperties.Length == 1)
.ToDictionary(v => v.DependentProperties[0].Name, v => v.NavigationProperty);
return new ReadOnlyDictionary<string, NavigationProperty>(result);
}
}
I've tried these solutions and many others, but none of them quite worked out. Since this is the first answer on google, I'll add my solution here.
The method that worked well for me was to take relationships out of the picture during commits, so there was nothing for EF to screw up. I did this by re-finding the parent object in the DBContext, and deleting that. Since the re-found object's navigation properties are all null, the childrens' relationships are ignored during the commit.
var toDelete = db.Parents.Find(parentObject.ID);
db.Parents.Remove(toDelete);
db.SaveChanges();
Note that this assumes the foreign keys are setup with ON DELETE CASCADE, so when the parent row is removed, the children will be cleaned up by the database.
I used Mosh's solution, but it was not obvious to me how to implement the composition key correctly in code first.
So here is the solution:
public class Holiday
{
[Key, Column(Order = 0), DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int HolidayId { get; set; }
[Key, Column(Order = 1), ForeignKey("Location")]
public LocationEnum LocationId { get; set; }
public virtual Location Location { get; set; }
public DateTime Date { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
If you are using Auto mapper and facing the the issue following is the good solution, it work for me
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/576393/Solutionplusto-aplus-Theplusoperationplusfailed
Since the problem is that we're mapping null navigation properties, and we actually don't need them to be updated on the Entity since they didn't changed on the Contract, we need to ignore them on the mapping definition:
ForMember(dest => dest.RefundType, opt => opt.Ignore())
So my code ended up like this:
Mapper.CreateMap<MyDataContract, MyEntity>
ForMember(dest => dest.NavigationProperty1, opt => opt.Ignore())
ForMember(dest => dest.NavigationProperty2, opt => opt.Ignore())
.IgnoreAllNonExisting();
This issue arise because we try to delete the parent table still child table data is present.
We solve the problem with help of cascade delete.
In model Create method in dbcontext class.
modelBuilder.Entity<Job>()
.HasMany<JobSportsMapping>(C => C.JobSportsMappings)
.WithRequired(C => C.Job)
.HasForeignKey(C => C.JobId).WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
modelBuilder.Entity<Sport>()
.HasMany<JobSportsMapping>(C => C.JobSportsMappings)
.WithRequired(C => C.Sport)
.HasForeignKey(C => C.SportId).WillCascadeOnDelete(true);
After that,In our API Call
var JobList = Context.Job
.Include(x => x.JobSportsMappings) .ToList();
Context.Job.RemoveRange(JobList);
Context.SaveChanges();
Cascade delete option delete the parent as well parent related child table with this simple code. Make it try in this simple way.
Remove Range which used for delete the list of records in the database
Thanks
I also solved my problem with Mosh's answer and I thought PeterB's answer was a bit of since it used an enum as foreign key. Remember that you will need to add a new migration after adding this code.
I can also recommend this blog post for other solutions:
http://www.kianryan.co.uk/2013/03/orphaned-child/
Code:
public class Child
{
[Key, Column(Order = 0), DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Heading { get; set; }
//Add other properties here.
[Key, Column(Order = 1)]
public int ParentId { get; set; }
public virtual Parent Parent { get; set; }
}
Using the solution of Slauma, I created some generic functions to help update child objects and collections of child objects.
All my persistent objects implement this interface
/// <summary>
/// Base interface for all persisted entries
/// </summary>
public interface IBase
{
/// <summary>
/// The Id
/// </summary>
int Id { get; set; }
}
With this I implemented these two functions in my Repository
/// <summary>
/// Check if orgEntry is set update it's values, otherwise add it
/// </summary>
/// <param name="set">The collection</param>
/// <param name="entry">The entry</param>
/// <param name="orgEntry">The original entry found in the database (can be <code>null</code> is this is a new entry)</param>
/// <returns>The added or updated entry</returns>
public T AddOrUpdateEntry<T>(DbSet<T> set, T entry, T orgEntry) where T : class, IBase
{
if (entry.Id == 0 || orgEntry == null)
{
entry.Id = 0;
return set.Add(entry);
}
else
{
Context.Entry(orgEntry).CurrentValues.SetValues(entry);
return orgEntry;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// check if each entry of the new list was in the orginal list, if found, update it, if not found add it
/// all entries found in the orignal list that are not in the new list are removed
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of entry</typeparam>
/// <param name="set">The database set</param>
/// <param name="newList">The new list</param>
/// <param name="orgList">The original list</param>
public void AddOrUpdateCollection<T>(DbSet<T> set, ICollection<T> newList, ICollection<T> orgList) where T : class, IBase
{
// attach or update all entries in the new list
foreach (T entry in newList)
{
// Find out if we had the entry already in the list
var orgEntry = orgList.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id != 0 && e.Id == entry.Id);
AddOrUpdateEntry(set, entry, orgEntry);
}
// Remove all entries from the original list that are no longer in the new list
foreach (T orgEntry in orgList.Where(e => e.Id != 0).ToList())
{
if (!newList.Any(e => e.Id == orgEntry.Id))
{
set.Remove(orgEntry);
}
}
}
To use it i do the following:
var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
.Where(p => p.Id == parent.Id)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems2)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Add the parent (including collections) to the context or update it's values (except the collections)
originalParent = AddOrUpdateEntry(_dbContext.ParentItems, parent, originalParent);
// Update each collection
AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems, parent.ChildItems, orgiginalParent.ChildItems);
AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems2, parent.ChildItems2, orgiginalParent.ChildItems2);
Hope this helps
EXTRA: You could also make a seperate DbContextExtentions (or your own context inferface) class:
public static void DbContextExtentions {
/// <summary>
/// Check if orgEntry is set update it's values, otherwise add it
/// </summary>
/// <param name="_dbContext">The context object</param>
/// <param name="set">The collection</param>
/// <param name="entry">The entry</param>
/// <param name="orgEntry">The original entry found in the database (can be <code>null</code> is this is a new entry)</param>
/// <returns>The added or updated entry</returns>
public static T AddOrUpdateEntry<T>(this DbContext _dbContext, DbSet<T> set, T entry, T orgEntry) where T : class, IBase
{
if (entry.IsNew || orgEntry == null) // New or not found in context
{
entry.Id = 0;
return set.Add(entry);
}
else
{
_dbContext.Entry(orgEntry).CurrentValues.SetValues(entry);
return orgEntry;
}
}
/// <summary>
/// check if each entry of the new list was in the orginal list, if found, update it, if not found add it
/// all entries found in the orignal list that are not in the new list are removed
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of entry</typeparam>
/// <param name="_dbContext">The context object</param>
/// <param name="set">The database set</param>
/// <param name="newList">The new list</param>
/// <param name="orgList">The original list</param>
public static void AddOrUpdateCollection<T>(this DbContext _dbContext, DbSet<T> set, ICollection<T> newList, ICollection<T> orgList) where T : class, IBase
{
// attach or update all entries in the new list
foreach (T entry in newList)
{
// Find out if we had the entry already in the list
var orgEntry = orgList.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id != 0 && e.Id == entry.Id);
AddOrUpdateEntry(_dbContext, set, entry, orgEntry);
}
// Remove all entries from the original list that are no longer in the new list
foreach (T orgEntry in orgList.Where(e => e.Id != 0).ToList())
{
if (!newList.Any(e => e.Id == orgEntry.Id))
{
set.Remove(orgEntry);
}
}
}
}
and use it like:
var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
.Where(p => p.Id == parent.Id)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems)
.Include(p => p.ChildItems2)
.SingleOrDefault();
// Add the parent (including collections) to the context or update it's values (except the collections)
originalParent = _dbContext.AddOrUpdateEntry(_dbContext.ParentItems, parent, originalParent);
// Update each collection
_dbContext.AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems, parent.ChildItems, orgiginalParent.ChildItems);
_dbContext.AddOrUpdateCollection(_dbContext.ChildItems2, parent.ChildItems2, orgiginalParent.ChildItems2);
I was face same problem when I am going to delete my record than some issue was occur , for this issue solution is that when you are going to delete your record than you missing some thing before deleting header/master record you must write to code for delete its detail before header/Master I hope you issue will be resolve.
I had the same issue when I was trying to modify the scalar property of the targeted entity and realized I have accidentally referenced the target entity's parent:
entity.GetDbContextFromEntity().Entry(entity).Reference(i => i.ParentEntity).Query().Where(p => p.ID == 1).Load();
Just an advice by making sure the target entity does not reference any parent.
I've met this problem before several hours and try everything, but in my case the solution was diferent from the listed above.
If you use already retrieved entity from the database and try to modify it's childrens the error will occure, but if you get fresh copy of the entity from the database there should not be any problems.
Do not use this:
public void CheckUsersCount(CompanyProduct companyProduct)
{
companyProduct.Name = "Test";
}
Use this:
public void CheckUsersCount(Guid companyProductId)
{
CompanyProduct companyProduct = CompanyProductManager.Get(companyProductId);
companyProduct.Name = "Test";
}
Basically I want to use a dynamic data website to maintain data in an EF4 model where the entities are in their own assembly. Model and context are in another assembly.
I tried this Entity Framework 4 + Self-Tracking Entities + ASP.NET Dynamic Data = Error
but get an "ambiguous match" error from reflection:
System.Reflection.AmbiguousMatchException was unhandled by user code
Message=Ambiguous match found.
Source=mscorlib
StackTrace:
at System.RuntimeType.GetPropertyImpl(String name, BindingFlags bindingAttr, Binder binder, Type returnType, Type[] types, ParameterModifier[] modifiers)
at System.Type.GetProperty(String name)
at System.Web.DynamicData.ModelProviders.EFTableProvider..ctor(EFDataModelProvider dataModel, EntitySet entitySet, EntityType entityType, Type entityClrType, Type parentEntityClrType, Type rootEntityClrType, String name)
at System.Web.DynamicData.ModelProviders.EFDataModelProvider.CreateTableProvider(EntitySet entitySet, EntityType entityType)
at System.Web.DynamicData.ModelProviders.EFDataModelProvider..ctor(Object contextInstance, Func1 contextFactory)
at System.Web.DynamicData.ModelProviders.SchemaCreator.CreateDataModel(Object contextInstance, Func1 contextFactory)
at System.Web.DynamicData.MetaModel.RegisterContext(Func`1 contextFactory, ContextConfiguration configuration)
at WebApplication1.Global.RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes) in C:\dev\Puffin\Puffin.Prototype.Web\Global.asax.cs:line 42
at WebApplication1.Global.Application_Start(Object sender, EventArgs e) in C:\dev\Puffin\Puffin.Prototype.Web\Global.asax.cs:line 78
InnerException:
I came across a similar problem to this recently. It had to do with inheritance in my model. I had a Resource entity that had derived types of Person, Equipment, etc. and in those I had overridden a couple properties, but by mistake gave them different signatures. I'll describe my scenario and hopefully it will help.
To be able to debug deep enough into the framework, and see all the variable values, you will have to disable optimizations:
Link
I was seeing the Ambiguous Match error when registering the Context in Global.asax as you were:
public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes)
{
// IMPORTANT: DATA MODEL REGISTRATION
// Uncomment this line to register an ADO.NET Entity Framework model for ASP.NET Dynamic Data.
// Set ScaffoldAllTables = true only if you are sure that you want all tables in the
// data model to support a scaffold (i.e. templates) view. To control scaffolding for
// individual tables, create a partial class for the table and apply the
// [ScaffoldTable(true)] attribute to the partial class.
// Note: Make sure that you change "YourDataContextType" to the name of the data context
// class in your application.
DefaultModel.RegisterContext(typeof(EntityModelContainer), new ContextConfiguration() { ScaffoldAllTables = true });
Stepping into the RegisterContext method, I got to System.Web.DynamicData.ModelProviders.EFDataModelProvider there is section of code that loads all the Entities in the model by traversing the inheritance hierarchy in the constuctor for EFDataModelProvider.
while (objectStack.Any()) {
EntityType entityType = objectStack.Pop();
if (entityType != null) {
// Update the entity set when we are at another root type (a type without a base type).
if (entityType.BaseType == null) {
currentEntitySet = entitySetLookup[entityType];
}
var table = CreateTableProvider(currentEntitySet, entityType);
tables.Add(table);
}
foreach (EntityType derivedEntityType in derivedTypesLookup[entityType]) {
// Push the derived entity types on the stack
objectStack.Push(derivedEntityType);
}
}
I put a breakpoint in here and was able to see that Ambiguous Match was occurring for me when calling CreateTableProvider on my Equipment entity (which was derived from Resource).
Looking back at the Stack Trace from the original exception (which I should have done in the first place!) I put a breakpoint in the constructor for System.Web.DynamicData.ModelProviders.EFTableProvider.IsPublicProperty and watched to see which property/method/whatever was causing the ambiguous match -- for me this ended up being a navigation property called Resources (Resources are themselves a hierarchy) that I had overridden in Equipment.
private static bool IsPublicProperty(Type entityClrType, string propertyName) {
var property = entityClrType.GetProperty(propertyName);
return property != null && property.GetGetMethod() != null;
}
In the partial class for Equipment, I had:
public partial class Equipment
{
public new IEnumerable<Resource> Resources
{
but in the parent class, Resource, Resources was defined as:
public virtual ICollection<Resource> Resources
{
When these Properties are being loaded by the .GetProperty(propertyName) in IsPublicProperty, they have the same name but different signatures (because I had given them different return type by mistake) so it isn't clear which shoudl be loaded based on name alone. I corrected my mistake and made Resources in my Equipment class return an ICollection, and boom -- no more ambiguous match.
Not sure if this will help or not, but if you step through in a similar way you should be able to find exactly what is causing the ambiguous match.