I have a Recommendation object and a FeedbackLevel object and the FeedbackLevel object is a navigation property inside a Recommendation object
Recommendation
int EntityKey;
FeedbackLevel Level;
Inserting a new one works just fine with AddObject(). Here's what I'm trying with the update, which doesn't work.
recommendation.Level = myRepository.GetFeedbackLevel(newLevel);
_context.Recommendations.Attach(new Recommendation { EntityKey = recommendation.EntityKey });
_context.Recommendations.ApplyCurrentValues(recommendation);
_context.SaveChanges(System.Data.Objects.SaveOptions.AcceptAllChangesAfterSave);
The code above is basically a compact version of what I have. Updating a scalar property works just fine, but I can't update a new navigation property as the avove code succeeds without any changes!
I've also tried a few other methods like getting an existing Recommendation first and then re-assigning the FeedbackLevel to it without any luck.
UPDATE:
Here is what I captured from the sql profiler during the save call:
exec sp_executesql N'update [dbo].[Recommendation]
set [FeedbackComment] = #0, [LastUpdatedDate] = #1
where ([RecommendationKey] = #2)
',N'#0 varchar(255),#1 datetime,#2 int',#0='This is cool',#1='2010-01-08 10:06:06.5400000',#2=11
It looks like it does not even know that the FeedbackLevel needs to be saved. How can I get it to trigger it?
Not sure exactly what your trying to do here,
but if your trying to do an update, simple way is to
1) do a, GET [entityName] by id, use include to get any child properties
2) update the attributes
3) make sure the entity state is modified
4) Save changes
By doing a GET first, you wont need to get attach it to the context before you update, as it will be already in there.
Related
I implemented a feature to automatically load the next record after finishing the current one. On the server, I can get the next record and load it into the model fine. The problem is, when I return the view, MVC favors the posted values from the previous record over the model values from the current record.
Public Function Update(model As UpdateModel) As ActionResult
'... save changes to the model
If model.LoadNext Then
Dim nextRecord As UpdateModel = GetNextRecord()
Return View(nextRecord)
Else
Return RedirectToAction("Index")
End If
End Function
I've confirmed in the debugger that I am passing the nextRecord properly. The view is reading the posted values (from the Request I guess?) instead of using the model.
Is there a way to avoid this behavior. Request.Form, Request.Params, and Request.QueryString are all read only so I cannot clear them.
You should call ModelState.Clear() before returning the view. Keep in mind Post-Redirect-Get is also an option if you don't want to break user navigation.
ormlite-android-4.29, ormlite-core-4.29
I have a ForiegnCollection of PantryCheckLine objects like this in my PantryCheck class.
#ForeignCollectionField(eager = true, maxEagerForeignCollectionLevel = 1)
private ForeignCollection<PantryCheckLine> pantryCheckLines;
Let's say I had 3 PantryCheckLines objects and I deleted one. Then I want to delete the PantryCheck with combined PantryCheckLines of it. Everything seems working. But the size of the ForiegnCollectionis not correct.
deleting method as follows.
PantryCheckLineRepo pantryCheckLineRepo =
new PantryCheckLineRepo(DaoFactory.getPantryCheckLineDaoInstance());
Collection<PantryCheckLine> pantryCheckLinesCollection =
this.getPantryCheckLines();
Log.v("pantrychecklines size", pantryCheckLinesCollection.size());
pantryCheckLineRepo.delete(pantryCheckLinesCollection);
Log.v("pantrychecklines", "deleted");
appreciate your help.
I can't answer specifically because I'm not sure what the delete() method is doing. If you edit your question with more details about what Dao calls or ForeignCollection calls are being made, I can add details here.
The only way the collection size would be affected is if you used the remove(Object) method on the collection itself. If you used the Dao to delete the item behind the scenes then the collection would not know that the delete happened and its eager fetched internal list size would not be affected. The lazy collections (eager = false) always go to the database so either remove(Object) or dao.delete(Object) would work.
Hope this helps.
I have a Strain model that has a belongsTo relationship with a Sample model, i. e. a strain belongs to a sample.
I am configuring a hidden field in the StrainForm configure() method this way:
$defaultId = (int)$this->getObject()->getSample()->getTable()->getDefaultSampleId();
$this->setWidget('sample_id', new sfWidgetFormInputHidden(array('default' => $defaultId)));
Whenever I create a new Strain, the $form->save() fails. The debug toolbar revealed that it tries to save a Sample object first and I do not know why.
However, if I retrieve the default sample ID using the table it works like a charm:
$defaultId = (int)Doctrine_Core::getTable('Sample')->getDefaultSampleId();
$this->setWidget('sample_id', new sfWidgetFormInputHidden(array('default' => $defaultId)));
My question here is what can be happening with the getObject()->getSample()... sequence of methods that causes the StrainForm to think it has to save a Sample object instead of Strain.
I tried to debug with xdebug but I cannot came up with a clear conclusion.
Any thoughts?
Thanks!!
When you call getSample its creating a Sample instance. This is automatically attached to the Strain object, thus when you save you also save the Sample.
An altenrative to calling getSample would be to chain through Strain object to the Sample table since i assume youre only doing this so your not hardcodeing the Sample's name in related form:
// note Sample is the alias not necessarily the Model name
$defaultId = Doctrine_Core::getTable($this->getObject()->getTable()->getRelation('Sample')->getModel())->getDefaultId();
Your solution probably falls over because you can't use getObject() on a new form (as at that stage the object simply doesn't exist).
Edit: Why don't you pass the default Sample in via the options array and then access it from within the form class via $this->getOption('Sample') (if I remember correctly)?
This is my first post here, so I hope everything is fine.
Here is my problem:
I have a table in my database called UserTypes. It has:
ID;
IsPrivate;
Parent_ID;
The relevant ones are the first and the third one.
I have another table called UserTypes_T which has information for the different types, that is language specific. The fields are:
Language_ID;
UserType_ID;
Name;
What I'm trying to achieve is load the entire hierarchy from the UserTypes table and show it in a TreeView (this is not relevant for now). Then, by selecting some of the user types I can edit them in separate edit box (the name) and a combo box (the parent).
Everything works fine until I try to persist the changes in the database. EF has generated for me two entity classes for those tables:
The class for the user types has:
ID;
IsPrivate;
Parent_ID;
A navigational property for the self-reference (0..1);
A navigational property for the child elements;
Another navigational property for the UserTypes_T table (1..*);
The class for the translated information has:
UserType_ID;
Language_ID;
Name;
A navigational property to the UserTypes table (*..1);
A navigational property to the Languages table (*..1);
I get the data I need using:
return context.UserTypes.Include("UserTypes_T").Where(ut => ut.IsPrivate==false).ToList();
in my WCF Web service. I can add new user types with no problems, but when I try to update the old ones, some strange things happen.
If I update a root element (Parent_ID==null) everything works!
If I update an element where Parent_ID!=null I get the following error:
AcceptChanges cannot continue because the object’s key values conflict with another object in the ObjectStateManager.
I searched all over the internet and read the blog post from Diego B Vega (and many more) but my problem is different. When I change a parent user type, I actually change the Parent_ID property, not the navigational property. I always try to work with the IDs, not the generated navigational properties in order to avoid problems.
I did a little research, tried to see what is the object graph that I get and saw that there were lots of duplicate entities:
The root element had a list of its child elements. Each child element had a back reference to the root or to its parent and so on. You can imagine. As I wasn't using those navigational properties, because I used the IDs to get/set the data I needed, I deleted them from the model. To be specific I deleted points 4 and 5 from the UserTypes entity class. Then I had an object graph with each element only once. I tried a new update but I had the same problem:
The root element was updated fine, but the elements, that had some parents, threw the same exception.
I saw that I had a navigational property in the UserTypes_T entity class, pointing to a user type, so I deleted it too. Then this error disappeared. All the items in the object graph were unique. But the problem remained - I could update my root element with no problems, but when trying to update the children (with no exclusions) I got a null reference exception in the generated Model.Context.Extensions class:
if (!context.ObjectStateManager.TryGetObjectStateEntry(entityInSet.Item2, out entry))
{
context.AddObject(entityInSet.Item1, entityInSet.Item2);//here!
}
I tried to update only the name (which is in UserTypes_T) but the error is the same.
I'm out of ideas and I've been trying to solve this problem for 8 hours now, so I'll appreciate if someone gives me ideas or share their experience.
PS:
The only way I succeeded updating a child object was using the following code to retrieve the data:
var userTypes = argoContext.UserTypes.Include("UserTypes_T").Where(ut => ut.IsPrivate==false).ToList();
foreach (UserType ut in userTypes)
{
ut.UserType1 = null;
ut.UserTypes1 = null;
}
return userTypes;
where UserType1 is the navigational property, pointing to the parent user type and UserTypes1 is the navigational property, holding a list of the child element. The problem here was that EF "fixups" the objects and changes the Parent_ID to null. If I set it back again, EF sets the UserTypes1, too... Maybe there is a way to stop this behavior?
OK everybody, I just found what the problem was and I'm posting the answer if anybody else encounters the same issue.
The problem was that I was making some validation on the server in order to see if there isn't a circular reference between the user types. So, my method on the server looked something like:
using (MyEntities context = new MyEntities())
{
string errMsg = MyValidator.ValidateSomething(context.UserTypes,...);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(errMsg)) throw new FaultException(errMsg);
//some other code here...
context.UserTypes.ApplyChanges(_userType);//_userType is the one that is updated
context.UserTypes.SaveChanges();
}
The problem is that when making the validation, the context is filled and when trying to save the changes, there are objects with the same key values.
The solution is simple - to use different context for validating things on the server:
using (MyEntities validationContext = new MyEntities())
{
//validation goes here...
}
using (MyEntities context = new MyEntities())
{
//saving changes and other processing...
}
Another one can be:
using (MyEntities context = new MyEntities())
{
using (MyEntities validationContext = new MyEntities())
{
//validation
}
//saving changes and other processing...
}
That's it! I hope it can be useful to somebody!
To facilitate control reuse we created a solution with three separate projects: a control library, Silverlight client, and ASP.NET backend. The control library has no reference to the RIA Services-generated data model classes so when it needs to interact with it, we use reflection.
This has worked fine so far but I've hit a bump. I have a DataGrid control where the user can select a row, press the 'delete' button, and it should remove the entity from the collection. In the DataGrid class I have the following method:
private void RemoveEntity(Entity entity)
{
// Use reflection to remove the item from the collection
Type sourceType = typeof(System.Windows.Ria.EntityCollection<>);
Type genericType = sourceType.MakeGenericType(entity.GetType());
System.Reflection.MethodInfo removeMethod = genericType.GetMethod("Remove");
removeMethod.Invoke(this._dataGrid.ItemsSource, new object[] { entity });
// Equivalent to: ('Foo' derives from Entity)
// EntityCollection<Foo> ec;
// ec.Remove(entity);
}
This works on the client side but on the domain service the following error gets generated during the Submit() method:
"The UPDATE statement conflicted with
the FOREIGN KEY constraint
"********". The conflict occurred in
database "********", table "********",
column '********'. The statement has
been terminated."
One thing I noticed is the UpdateFoo() service method is being called instead of the DeleteFoo() method on the domain service. Further inspection shows the entity is going into the ModifiedEntities ChangeSet instead of the RemovedEntities ChangeSet. I don't know if that's the problem but it doesn't seem right.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks,
UPDATE
I've determined that the problem is definitely coming from the reflection call to the EntityCollection.Remove() method. For some reason calling it causes the entity's EntityState property to change to EntityState.Modified instead of EntityState.Deleted as it should.
Even if I try to remove from the collection by completely circumventing the DataGrid I get the exact same issue:
Entity selectedEntity = this.DataContext.GetType().GetProperty("SelectedEntity").GetValue(this.DataContext, null) as Entity;
object foo = selectedEntity.GetType().GetProperty("Foo").GetValue(selectedEntity, null);
foo.GetType().InvokeMember("Remove", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, foo, new object[] { entity });
As a test, I tried modifying the UpdateFoo() domain service method to implement a delete and it worked successfully to delete the entity. This indicates that the RIA service call is working correctly, it's just calling the wrong method (Update instead of Delete.)
public void UpdateFoo(Foo currentFoo)
{
// Original update implementation
//if ((currentFoo.EntityState == EntityState.Detached))
// this.ObjectContext.AttachAsModified(currentFoo, this.ChangeSet.GetOriginal(currentFoo));
// Delete implementation substituted in
Foo foo = this.ChangeSet.GetOriginal(currentFoo);
if ((foo.EntityState == EntityState.Detached))
this.ObjectContext.Attach(foo);
this.ObjectContext.DeleteObject(foo);
}
I've been researching a similar issue.
I believe the issue is you are calling remove with a reference for an EntityCollections within the DomainContext as the root reference rather than using the DomainContext itself as the root.
So...
ParentEntityCollection.EntityCollectionForTEntity.Remove(TEntity);
Produces the EntityState.Modified instead of EntityState.Deleted
Try instead...
DomainContext.EntityCollectionForTEntity.Remove(TEntity);
I think this will produce the result you are seeking.
Hope this helps.
What is the "column" in the "FOREIGN KEY constraint" error? Is this a field in the grid row and collection that coorosponds to that column? Is it possible that the entity you are trying to remove is a column in the row rather than the row itself which is causing an update to the row (to null the column) rather than to delete the row?
I read your update and looks like you've determined that the problem is the reflection.
Have you tried to take the reflection out of the picture?
As in:
private void RemoveEntity(Entity entity)
{
// Use reflection to remove the item from the collection
Type sourceType = typeof(System.Windows.Ria.EntityCollection<>);
Type genericType = sourceType.MakeGenericType(entity.GetType());
// Make sure we have the right type
// and let the framework take care of the proper invoke routine
if (genericType.IsAssignableFrom(this._dataGrid.ItemsSource.GetType()))
((Object) this._dataGrid.ItemsSource).Remove(entity);
}
Yes, I know it's ugly, but some times...
Edited to add
I've updated the code to remove the is keyword.
Now about using the object to make the call to the Remove method, I believe it might work due the late binding of it.