Error: The ObjectContext instance has been disposed and can no longer be used for operations that require a connection.
I am trying to create a WCF service with Entity Framework (VS 2010, .NET 4). When I run it, I get the above error.
I read something about editing the T4 template, but it appears that it already has
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)]
public partial class Person : EntityObject
and
[DataMemberAttribute()]
public global::System.Int32 ID
{
get
{
return _ID;
}
I am not sure what the difference is between
[DataMemberAttribute()] and [DataMember]
or
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)] and [DataContract]
either.
public Person GetPersonByID(int id)
{
using (var ctx = new MyEntities())
{
return (from p in ctx.Person
where p.ID == id
select p).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
How does WCF and EF work together, properly?
Do you have navigation properties in your Person class? Did you disable lazy loading? Otherwise it will probably try to load content for navigation properties during serialization and it fails because of closed context.
To your other questions:
[DataMemberAttribute()] and [DataMember] are same. It is just shorter name.
[DataContractAttribute(IsReference=true)] and [DataContract] are not same. IsRefrence allows tracking circular references in navigation properties. Without this parameter circular reference causes never ending recursion.
Related
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'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.
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.
I'd like to know how to create a method that will allow me to generically do this...
public class Repo<T> : IGenericRepo<T> where T : class
{
protected PteDotNetEntities db;
public T Get(int id)
{
//how do I dynamically get to the correct entity object and select it by
//id?
}
}
Yes you can. If you know that all your entities will have simple primary key property of type int and name Id you can do simply this:
public interface IEntity
{
int Id { get; }
}
All your entities must implement this interface. Next you can simply do:
public class Repo<T> : IGenericRepo<T> where T : class, IEntity
{
protected PteDotNetEntities db;
public T Get(int id)
{
return db.CreateObjectSet<T>().FirstOrDefault(e => e.Id == id);
}
}
This is the simplest possible solution. There are better solutions using GetObjectByKey but they are more complex. The difference between FirstOrDefault and GetObjectByKey is repeatable execution. FirstOrDefault always executes DB query whereas GetObjectByKey first checks if the entity with the same key was already loaded / attached to the context and returns it without querying the database. As reference for version using GetObjectByKey you can check similar questions:
Entity Framework Simple Generic GetByID but has differents PK Name
Generic GetById for complex PK
You can simplify those examples if you know the name of the key property upfront (forced by the interface).
In case of using code first / DbContext API you can also check this question:
Generic repository EF4 CTP5 getById
I'm wondering why there is no Detach method on the DbContext object like there is for ObjectContext. I can only assume this omission was intentional, but I have a hard time figuring out why. I need to be able to detach and re-attach entities (for putting in the cache in an ASP.NET project, for example). However, since I can't detach an entity, when I try to attach an entity that was associated with a previous context, I get the "An entity object cannot be referenced by multiple instances of IEntityChangeTracker" exception.
What's the guidance here? Am I missing something?
For people that might stumble upon this question, as of CTP5 you now need to write
((IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext
in order to get to ObjectContext.
DbContext uses an ObjectContext internally and EF team make this available as a protected property just in case you ever need to drop down to the lower level API and sounds like this is the case here, so you can use or expose the required functionality from a derived DbContext:
public class YourContext : DbContext
{
public void Detach(object entity)
{
ObjectContext.Detach(entity);
}
}
Then you can call this method from your controller to detach an entity.
Alternatively, you can change it to even have a richer API:
public class YourContext : DbContext
{
public void ChangeObjectState(object entity, EntityState entityState)
{
ObjectContext.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(entity, entityState);
}
}
Here is how DbContext looks like from metadata:
public class DbContext : IDisposable
{
protected System.Data.Objects.ObjectContext ObjectContext { get; }
...
}
EF:CF 4.1 RC1 and EF:CF 4.1 RTW have the same explicitly implemented IObjectContextAdapter:
public static class DbContextExtensions
{
public static void Detach(this System.Data.Entity.DbContext context, object entity)
{
((System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.IObjectContextAdapter)context).ObjectContext.Detach(entity);
}
}
Microsoft decided "Detach is too advanced technology and should be hidden". IMHO the man who invented this should be shot - because if you add brand new entity, it is otherwise difficult to just remove it without commiting changes to db (you can manipulate with DbEntityEntry but that's another story).
Edit 4 years later:
With EF6 (i somehow skipped EF5 :) ) you dont need detach() anymore, becouse removing freshly added entry does not generate delete from [table] where [Id] = 0 as in EF4 - you can just call mySet.Remove(myFreshlyCreatedAndAddedEntity) and everything will be allright.
I usually extend the base class(inherits from the DbContext) with the property:
public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
public ObjectContext ThisObjectContext
{
get
{
return ((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext;
}
}
}
later you can use this property for variety of useful stuff ... like Detach :)