I'm new to the Entity Framework and am currently experimenting with it. I created a simple database, set up the model in VS2008, and have got the code going to query the database using the EF as well as inserting new data.
There's one thing that has me a little confused though. I have an entity (set up in my model) called Customer, and as part of the logic of my application I want to be able to create a temporary Customer object for some intermediate processing. This particular object should never actually be stored in the database. However, I noticed that as soon as I call SaveChanges() the customer is saved to the database. This isn't what I want to happen. I'd be quite happy to call AddCustomer() on the objects I do want to include - I just want to have the option to create a temporary instance for my own use.
I did discover I could call Detach() and pass in my temporary instance, which would stop it from being persisted. However I'm not sure this is the best way to do this since the temporary Customer object will have related objects, and unless I go through and detach them all I might end up in hot water.
It's possible I'm misunderstanding something about how the EF is supposed to work, or that I'm missing something obvious - I'm hoping someone can set me straight!
Thanks
John
If you want to have a temporary instance of an entity that'll never be connected to the EF again, use this Entity Cloner for cloning the entity
If you are trying to disconnect an entity, send it over the wire some where (let us say pass it over to the client over a service, to modify it, and then again get it back), and again merge back the changes to the EF - right now this is not directly supported. How ever, you can try these solutions
Entity Bag:
EFContrib (you need PostSharp4EF)
Why not have another Customer class with the same fields?
Just ran into this problem myself with a service using EF4 - there's a simpler solution - after you create the new entity instance, call
objectContext.Detach(newEntity);
Related
We're creating a WebAPI using Entity Framework in MVC 4. Our client wants to send complex objects containing related objects - both new and updated. The root object maybe new or existing one too. The client generates primary keys - we're using Guids for that. So on server we really can't tell that we got an existing object update or a new one. What would be the best way to handle this situation? We need some sort of add or update functionality and it's not yet clear to us how to proceed with Entity Framework for this.
EF doesn't have any build in support for discovering changes in detached object graph. You either have to include some field into every object describing if the object is new, not modified, updated or deleted (you will also need similar behavior to track changes in many-to-many relationships). If you don't use such field you have no other way than querying database and comparing current DB state with data received from client to find what has changed.
I need to copy data from one database to another with EF. E.g. I have the following table relations: Forms->FormVersions->FormLayouts... We have different forms in both databases and we want to collect them to one DB. Basically I want to load Form object recursively from one DB and save it to another DB with all his references. Also I need to change IDs of the object and related objects if there are exists objects with the same ID in the second database.
Until now I have following code:
Form form = null;
using (var context = new FormEntities())
{
form = (from f in context.Forms
join fv in context.FormVersions on f.ID equals fv.FormID
where f.ID == 56
select f).First();
}
var context1 = new FormEntities("name=FormEntities1");
context1.AddObject("Forms", form);
context1.SaveChanges();
I'm receiving the error: "The EntityKey property can only be set when the current value of the property is null."
Can you help with implementation?
The simplest solution would be create copy of your Form (new object) and add that new object. Otherwise you can try:
Call context.Detach(form)
Set form's EntityKey to null
Call context1.AddObject(form)
I would first second E.J.'s answer. Assuming though that you are going to use Entity Framework, one of the main problem areas that you will face is relationship management. Your code should use the Include method to ensure that related objects are included in the results of a select operation. The join that you have will not have this effect.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb738708.aspx
Further, detaching an object will not automatically detach the related objects. You can detach them in the same way however the problem here is that as each object is detached, the relationships that it held to other objects within the context are broken.
Manually restoring the relationships may be an option for you however it may be worthwhile looking at EntityGraph. This framework allows you to define object graphs and then perform operations such as detach upon them. The entire graph is detached in a single operation with its relationships intact.
My experience with this framework has been in relation to RIA Services and Silverlight however I believe that these operations are also supported in .Net.
http://riaservicescontrib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=EntityGraphs
Edit1: I just checked the EntityGraph docs and see that DetachEntityGraph is in the RIA specific layer which unfortunately rules it out as an option for you.
Edit2: Alex Jame's answer to the following question is a solution to your problem. Don't load the objects into the context to begin with - use the notracking option. That way you don't need to detach them which is what causes the problem.
Entity Framework - Detach and keep related object graph
If you are only doing a few records, Ladislav's suggestion will probably work, but if you are moving lots of data, you should/could consider doing this move in a stored procedure. The entire operation can be done at the server, with no need to move objects from the db server, to your front end and then back again. A single SP call would do it all.
The performance will be a lot better which may or may not not matter in your case.
I am using the Service Layer --> Repository --> Entity Framework (Code-First) w/POCO objects approach, and I am having a hard time with updating entities.
I am using AutoMapper to map my Domain Objects to my View Models and that works good for getting the data, no how do I get that changes back into the database?
Using pure POCO objects, I would assume that there is no sort of change tracking, so I see my only option is to handle it myself. Do you just make sure that your View Models have the EXACT same properties as your Domain Objects? What if I just change a field or two on the View Model? Won't the rest of the fields on the Domain Object get overwritten in the database with default values?
With that said, what is the best approach?
Thanks!
Edit
So what I am stumbling on is this, lets take for example a simple Customer:
1) The Controller has a service, CustomerService, that calls the services GetCustmoerByID method.
2) The Service calls into the CustomerRepository and retrieves the Customer object.
3) Controller uses AutoMapper to map the Customer to the ViewModel.
4) Controller hands the model to the View. Everything is great!
Now in the view you do some modifications of the customer and post it back to the controller to persist the changes to the database.
I would assume at this point the object is detached. So should the model have the EXACT same properties as the Customer object? And do you have to make hidden fields for each item that you do not want to show, so they can persist back?
How do you handle saving the object back to the database? What happens if your view/model only deals with a couple of the fields on the object?
If you're using EF Code First, i.e: the DbContext API, then you still do have change tracking which is taken care of by your context class.
after making changes to your objects, all you have to do is call SaveChanges() on your context and that will persist the changes to your database.
EDIT:
Since you are creating a "copy" of the entity using AutoMapper, then it's no longer attached to your context.
I guess what you could do is something similar to what you would in ASP.NET MVC (with UpdateModel). You can get the original entity from your context, take your ViewModel (which may contain changed properties) and update the old entity, either manually (just modified properties), or using AutoMapper. And then persist the changes using context.SaveChanges().
Another solution would be to send the model entity as [part of] the ViewModel. This way, you'll have your entity attached to the container and change tracking will still work.
Hope this helps :)
You are absolutely right that with a detached object you are responsible for informing the context about changes in your detached entity.
The basic approach is just set the entity as modified. This works for scalar and complex properties but it doesn't work for navigation properties (except FK relations) - for further reading about problems with navigation properties check this answer (it is related to EFv4 and ObjectContext API but same problems are with DbContext API). The disadvantage of this approach is that all fields in DB will be modified. If you just want to modify single field you still have to correctly fill others or your database record will be corrupted.
There is a way to explicitly define which fields have changed. You will set the modified state per property instead of whole entity. It is little bit harder to solve this on generic approach but I tried to show some way for EFv4 and for EFv4.1.
I agree with #AbdouMoumen that it's much simpler to use the model entities at the view level. The service layer should provide an API to persist those entities in the data store (db). The service layer shouldn't dumbly duplicate the repository lawyer (ie: Save(entity) for every entity) but rather provide a high level save for an aggregate of entities. For instance, you could have a Save(order) in the service layer which results in updating more basic entities like inventory, customer, account.
During the life of my ObjectContext, I receive a message saying telling me that a new entity has been added to the data source by some other process (i.e. not tracked by my ObjectContext). How do I add this entity to my local ObjectContext without recreating it?
I've looked at ObjectContext.Refresh() but I'm not sure if this is the right way forwards.
If the entity is available in your code, use the Attach method.
In case this object is not available in your code, the solution is indeed to call the Refresh method with StoreWins RefreshMode for the collection the object was added into.
I recommend you to take a look at the Self-Tracking Entities as well.
Is the answer not in the question title - long running object contexts are not a good idea in EF. Ideally the OC should be kept alive for as short a time as possible.
I need to load an object from the database, modify some of its fields and relations, and then I want to store a new value for only one field, without modifying the rest.
It would look something like this:
var thing = db.Things.First();
thing.Field1 = "asdas";
thing.Field2 = 23;
thing.OtherThings.Add(new OtherThing());
thing.FieldToUpdate = doSomething(thing);
db.SaveChanges();
But that would save all the changes, what I want is to only save FieldToUpdate...
I've looked around and all I've found is to use stored procedures, which seems like too much for something that looks so simple, besides I would have to make a different stored procedure for each time I need to do something like this...
My current solution is to open another context, load the thing again, update the FieldToUpdate and SaveChanges, but that's both inefficient and ugly.
If you want to do this with attached entity you have to update FieldToUpdate FIRST and call SaveChanges. Than you can update other fields and call SaveChanges again if needed. No other way with attached entity.
Other way you can try is to detach entity, modify what you want to (it will not track changes). Then attach entity back to context and call:
// I suppose that db is ObjectContext or inherited type
db.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(thing).SetModifiedProperty("FieldToUpdate");
Now only FieldToUpdate is tracked as changed.
The Entity Framework is smart enough to figure out what has changed and what hasn't and optimizes the SQL statement is uses accordingly. If you only change FieldToUpdate, then the SQL statement will only be an update on the single field, not on everything.
However, if you do change Field1 and Field2 from what they were originally, they will be persisted too, but ONLY if they changed. Otherwise, there's no need to tell the DB to change it to what it already is.
Entity framework does it this way because that's exactly what the developer wants 99.9% of the time. If you are going to use an entity object as an object that you want to move around and manipulate in ways other than treating it as a model of the database (like it should be), then you may want to consider creating another new wrapper class that lets you mess with all the data fields that you want (and have others that aren't in there), and then have the save method of it do the proper entity framework persistance, to keep things separate and clean.