I know EF 6 DbContextTransaction, but I'm getting bad experience with it over nested transaction.
Now I'm trying solely using TransactionScope for nested transaction, but also having problem.
This code involved 3 tables changes.
When an exception occured in inner trx dbTrx2, it messed up dbTrx1, as dataChg3.SaveChanges() will failed.
using (var dbTrx1 = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope())
{
...
dataChg1.....
foreach(var dataChg2 in listOfDataChg2)
{
...
try
{
using (var dbTrx2 = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope())
{
...
dbTrx2.Complete();
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
...
// when ex occured in dbTrx2, it messed up dbTrx1
}
...
}
dataChg3.SaveChanges(); // <- error - The operation is not valid for the state of the transaction
...
dbTrx1.Complete();
}
Does anyone ever workout proper nested transaction using entity framework?
As at present, EF6 can't properly handle nested transaction.
My workaround, primary to address my need:
- when exception occurred in nested transaction, bad data changes will not affect/bring-fort to next SaveChanges() invoke.
https://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/4d359652-d3ff-4127-bb94-c7bd40ba58c7/entity-framework-6-partially-using-transactionscope?forum=adodotnetentityframework
Related
I'm developing a multitenant application and would like to have to option to remove a tenant. This however seems to be less trivial than one would assume.
My goal is to delete all references to the tenant everywhere in the database. I understand that Tenant is Soft-Delete, but I since I don't want my database to fill up with old meaningless data I've tried disabling the soft-delete filter.
Here is some code that I've tried:
using (_unitOfWorkManager.Current.DisableFilter(AbpDataFilters.SoftDelete))
{
await TenantRepository.DeleteAsync(x => x.Id == tenantId);
}
This did not work. The tenant is marked as "IsDeleted" but not removed.
Then I figured that maybe it has something to do with UnitOfWork so I made sure no UnitOfWork was active and then manually controlled it:
using (var unitOfWork = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin())
{
// the codeblock above went here
unitOfWork.Complete();
}
This did not work, same result. And this is just the AbpTenant table. I'm also trying to delete from all other tables. For example AbpSettings and AbpLanguages. It's very unclear to me how to do that at all - the "managers" doesn't contain any Delete functions.
I tried creating IRepository for these entities but it does not work. The error reads
The type Abo.Configuration.Setting cannot be used as a type parameter TEntity in the generic type or method IRepository. There is no implicit reference conversion from Abp.Configuration.Setting to Abo.Domain.Entities.IEntity.
That leaves me with the option to use the DataContext directly:
using (EntityFramework.MyDbContext db = new EntityFramework.MyDbContext())
{
List<PermissionSetting> perms = await db.Permissions.Where(x => x.TenantId == tenantId).ToListAsync();
for (int i=0; i<perms.Count(); i++)
{
db.Permissions.Remove(perms[i]);
}
// I also tried deleting them in bulk at first
// ((DbSet<PermissionSetting>)db.Permissions).RemoveRange(db.Permissions.Where(x => x.TenantId == tenantId));
await db.SaveChangesAsync();
}
I tried that with and without UnitOfWork.
But it simply does not get deleted from the database. I'm getting no errors or Exceptions.
Why does it not get deleted? How can I delete it? Surely it must be possible?
since I don't want my database to fill up with old meaningless data I've tried disabling the soft-delete filter.
From the question on Disable SoftDelete for AbpUserRole:
protected override void CancelDeletionForSoftDelete(EntityEntry entry)
{
if (IsSoftDeleteFilterEnabled)
{
base.CancelDeletionForSoftDelete(entry);
}
}
The type Abo.Configuration.Setting cannot be used as a type parameter TEntity in the generic type or method IRepository. There is no implicit reference conversion from Abp.Configuration.Setting to Abo.Domain.Entities.IEntity.
Inject IRepository<Setting, long> instead of IRepository<Setting>.
That leaves me with the option to use the DataContext directly
...
But it simply does not get deleted from the database. I'm getting no errors or Exceptions.
From the documentation on Data Filters:
using (_unitOfWorkManager.Current.DisableFilter(AbpDataFilters.MayHaveTenant))
{
using (var db = new ...)
{
// ...
}
}
That said, there is no way to easily delete related tenant data completely. Consider writing SQL.
I have a method written in a Grails service, which processes a lot of data.
I noticed that, sometimes, the method returns success but the data is not persisted to the database.
I debugged it, following all the data till the end of the method and everything is fine, however data is not persisted.
The following image demonstrates the what I just explained. You can see the end of the method, in which a Map object is filled with persistent object metadata. Even you can see the console which contains the printend Hibertate SQL
How can I detect whether a rollback mechanism is thrown after successful method returning?
This is my connection properties for Oracle 12c database. Others configurations are Grails defaults
dataSource.pooled=true
hibernate.jdbc.use_get_generated_keys=true
hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache=true
hibernate.cache.use_query_cache=false
hibernate.cache.region.factory_class=org.hibernate.cache.ehcache.EhCacheRegionFactory
dataSource.driverClassName=oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleDriver
dataSource.dialect=org.hibernate.dialect.OracleDialect
dataSource.url=jdbc:oracle:thin:#172.16.1.20:1521:db
dataSource.username=<USER>
dataSource.password=<PASS>
hibernate.default_schema=<SCHEMA>
The service is anotated as #Transactional
#Transactional
class SincronizacionService {
}
Any Idea?
When using GORM's save method, also use failOnError:true. By default, save method silently fails. However, if you use failOnError:true, it will throw an exception if the data is not persisted.
If you do not want to stop the program when the data fails to save, you can use the try-catch block to log data that failed to save and let the algorithm continue to do it work.
Hope that helps.
I found the problem. In this method actaDenunciaService.generarActaDenuncia(denuncia), there is a peculiarity. In a part of the method is located the following snippet:
try {
DNomenclador nomenclador = nomencladorService.obtenerNomencladorDNomenclador(meta.valor.toLong())
if (!nomenclador) {
return toReturn(limpiarTexto(meta.valor))
} else {
return toReturn(nomenclador.valor)
}
} catch (Exception e) {
return toReturn(limpiarTexto(meta.valor))
}
A team member changed this line nomencladorService.obtenerNomencladorDNomenclador(meta.valor.toLong()). The change represented a huge improvement of memory saving. However, the team member did not take into account a business process, which does not take into account the method he used.
Yes, a runtime exception is being thrown.
And the treatment, depending on the objective of the method, is correct
For the future, this is how the method will be from now on:
try {
DNomenclador nomenclador = nomencladorService.obtenerNomencladorDNomencladorLibre(meta.valor.toLong())
if (!nomenclador) {
return toReturn(limpiarTexto(meta.valor))
} else {
return toReturn(nomenclador.valor)
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace()
return toReturn(limpiarTexto(meta.valor))
}
nomencladorService.obtenerNomencladorDNomencladorLibre(meta.valor.toLong()) for the business process
e.printStackTrace() for tracing any other peculiarity
Thanks a lot to everybody who had collaborated on finding this error
I found the error!
An error thrown inside a method for generating a PDF document with data, appearsto be failing. The second line shows this
try {
denuncia.xmlFirmadoServ = dfileManagerService.guardarDFile(signatureResponse.resultado, "xmlfirmadoservidor.xml", usuario)
denuncia = actaDenunciaService.generarActaDenuncia(denuncia).denuncia
} catch (Throwable t) {
denunciaUtilService.incrementarNumeroDenuncia(true)
throw t
}
Now, the new question is: If the method is encapsulated inside a try/catchblock, why the catch block is not excecuting?
When I comment the 2nd line inside try/catch block, data is persisted on database
With no comments, generation PDF method is executed till the end, doing all what it must do
So am using AspNetCore 1.0 with EFCore 1.0, both latest releases as far as I am aware.
Executing a query to delete an object using the FromSql method on a DbSet throws an exception. Both the code and exception are below.
public void DeleteColumn(int p_ColumnID)
{
int temp = p_ColumnID;
string query = "DELETE FROM Columns WHERE ID = {0}";
var columnsList = m_context.Columns.FromSql(query, p_ColumnID).ToList();
foreach (Columns c in columnsList)
{
m_context.Columns.Remove(c);
}
m_context.SaveChanges();
}
After executing the FromSql call, I get the following exception
An exception of type 'System.NotSupportedException' occurred in Remotion.Linq.dll but was not handled in user code
Additional information: Could not parse expression 'value(Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Query.Internal.EntityQueryable`1[ASPNET5_Scrum_Tool.Models.Columns]).FromSql("DELETE FROM Columns WHERE ID = {0}", __p_0)': This overload of the method 'Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.RelationalQueryableExtensions.FromSql' is currently not supported.
I have no clue how to fix this error and from Googling I have come across no similar problems.
I am also wondering, if the query/code was successful it would return an 'IQueryable object. Would that solely contain the results of the query, in this case the specific Column object to delete?
FromSql is intended to allow you to compose a custom SQL SELECT statement that will return entities. Using it with a DELETE statement is not appropriate here, since your goal is to load the records you want to delete and then delete them using the default Entity Framework mechanism. A Delete statement generally does not return the records deleted (though there are ways to accomplish that). Even if they did, the records will already be deleted and so you won't want to iterate over them and do a Remove on them.
The most straightforward way to do what you want might be to use the RemoveRange method in combination with a Where query.
public void DeleteColumn(int p_ColumnID)
{
m_context.Columns.RemoveRange(m_context.Columns.Where(x => x.ID == p_ColumnID))
m_context.SaveChanges();
}
Alternately, if you want to load your entities and iterate manually through them to
public void DeleteColumn(int p_ColumnID)
{
columnList = m_context.Columns.Where(x => x.ID == p_ColumnID);
foreach (Columns c in columnsList)
{
m_context.Columns.Remove(c);
}
m_context.SaveChanges();
}
If you really want to issue the Delete statement manually, as suggested by Mike Brind, use an ExecuteSqlCommand method similar to:
public void DeleteColumn(int p_ColumnID)
{
string sqlStatement = "DELETE FROM Columns WHERE ID = {0}";
m_context.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand(sqlStatement, p_ColumnID);
}
I had the same exception in a case where I did not use delete statement. Turns out I was using the In-Memory Database. Since it is not a real database you can't use FromSQL.
New to MVC/EF... My MVC web app was created using the code first from database model since I already had the database (SQLExpress)...
I'm getting the following error when I try an update a record to the database:
Store update, insert, or delete statement affected an unexpected
number of rows (0). Entities may have been modified or deleted since
entities were loaded
I got this error when using the standard code generated using the code first from database Entity Framework model. Strange because I'm working on a standalone machine which no one else has accessing to.
Here is the code that was failing:
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(tblPropGroup).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
So I wrote the following work around, which worked flawlessly for a while:
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(_Prop).State = EntityState.Modified;
bool saveFailed;
do
{
saveFailed = false;
try
{
db.SaveChanges();
}
catch (DbUpdateConcurrencyException ex)
{
saveFailed = true;
// Update original values from the database
var entry = ex.Entries.Single();
entry.OriginalValues.SetValues(entry.GetDatabaseValues());
}
} while (saveFailed);
Can anyone explain why db.SaveChanges results in a DbUpdateConcurrencyException on a DB with no other users? It makes no difference if I make any changes to the data or not. I have 22 different tables I'm access in this program, about half won't work without this workaround.
I suspect this is related to a race condition related to the context of the database.
Here are some answers:
side-effect of a feature called optimistic concurrency
Store update, insert, or delete statement affected an unexpected number of rows (0) EntityFramework
That may help.
It is better to use:
using(DBContext context = new DBContext())
{
//Entity code
}
To work with your context.
When I update my SQL 2012 database via EF 6.01 SaveChanges, with a string field that is too long, I get an Exception as expected. What I would like to do is drill into the Exception to find the offending table and column as the innermost SqlException merely tells me -
String or binary data would be truncated.
but not which column or table. I have code like below ready to tell me about any validation errors, but do not get such an Exception.
catch (DbEntityValidationException dbEx)
{
foreach (var validationErrors in dbEx.EntityValidationErrors)
{
foreach (var validationError in validationErrors.ValidationErrors)
{
Trace.TraceInformation("Property: {0} Error: {1}", validationError.PropertyName, validationError.ErrorMessage);
}
}
}
The Exception I get is nested as DbUpdateException containing an UpdateException containing a SqlException and none of these have any column information. Why do I not get a DbEntityValidationException? Is there any other way to find the offending column?
This exception you're getting is coming directly from SQL, being passed through Entity Framework. From MSDN about DbEntityValidationException:
Represents an exception thrown from SaveChanges() when the validation of entities fails.
(emphasis my own). The validation from Entity Framework is passing, but the actual SQL statement is failing since the data you're passing it is too long for a column. SQL does not return the column that would be truncated either. It's just a plain text message of 'String or binary data would be truncated.'
Your best bet, go through the columns and ensure the lengths on strings in your code match the lengths you have set in the SQL columns.
Apparently a DbEntityValidationException is not thrown because EF validation is not done for some reason, so I have added this code before doing the SaveChanges (via TxRepository.Commit) and throw my own custom EfValidationException containing the ValidationErrors if there are any. I have tested, and this works allowing me to log the problematic column.
// validate the changes
var lTxValidationErrors = TxRepository.mDbContext.GetValidationErrors();
if (lTxValidationErrors.Count() > 0)
{
// these changes will not commit so throw an error
throw new EfValidationException(lTxValidationErrors);
}
else
{
// commit the new data to the database
TxRepository.Commit();
}