Making DropCreateDatabaseAlways work with custom DbMigrationsConfiguration - entity-framework-6

Using ef6 code first and mysql I got the following exception:
Specified key was too long; max key length is 767 bytes.
To fix it I created custom HistoryContext and shortened ContextKey length.
And to use MyHistoryContext I created Configuration class inherited from DbMigrationsConfiguration<MyContext>.
After creation of Configuration class DropCreateDatabaseAlways db initializer stopped to work throwing:
The DropCreateDatabaseAlways initializer did not drop or create the database backing context 'MyContext' because Migrations are enabled for the context.
A̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶A̶u̶t̶o̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶M̶i̶g̶r̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶E̶n̶a̶b̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶f̶a̶l̶s̶e̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶n̶t̶ ̶h̶e̶l̶p̶. (I've understood that its unrelated.)
Edit.
I want to reformulate the problem: creating Configuration class inherited from DbMigrationsConfiguration<MyDbContext> (to use custom HistoryContext wich solves Specified key was too long problem in mysql) made ef think that I've enabled migrations via Enable-Migrations command and DropCreateDatabaseAlways stopped to work (but this is intended behaviour as far as I understand). But afterall this is not a big problem because I can create custom initializer with
context.Database.Create();
context.Database.Drop();
So, did I understand it correct?
Custom HistoryContext:
public class MyDbHistoryContext : HistoryContext
{
public MyDbHistoryContext(DbConnection existingConnection, string defaultSchema)
: base(existingConnection, defaultSchema)
{
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
modelBuilder.Entity<HistoryRow>()
.Property(x => x.ContextKey)
.HasMaxLength(255);
}
}

Related

How to correctly address "can't add a _parent field that points to an already existing type, that isn't already a parent" on app startup

I'm running into a problem with my Elasticsearch Document index creation failing on startup with "java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: can't add a _parent field that points to an already existing type, that isn't already a parent". I'm not sure if this is due to a version upgrade or b/c I am starting with a brand new Elasticsearch server install.
Contrived example that shows what I'm seeing:
// UserSearchResult.java
#Document(indexName = "hr_index", type = "user")
public class UserSearchResult implements Serializable {
...
#Field(type=FieldType.keyword)
#Parent(type="department")
private String departmentCode;
...
}
// DepartmentSearchResult.java
#Document(indexName = "hr_index", type = "department")
public class DepartmentSearchResult implements Serializable {
...
}
When I start my application I get that exception. If I check the ElasticSearch server, I see the "hr_index" index and the "department" mapping, but the "user" mapping is not created.
If I understand the error, it's because "department" is being created and then when Spring tries to create "user" with "department" as its parent, it doesn't like that, since department wasn't previously marked as a parent when it was created.
Is there some way (via annotation?) to denote DepartmentSearchResult as being a parent when it's created somehow?
Or, is it possible to give a hint to Spring Data Elasticsearch as to what order it should create the indices/mappings? I have seen some other posts (Spring Data Elasticsearch Parent/Child Document Repositories / Test execution error) but disabling auto creation and then manually creating it myself (either as part of my Spring codebase or external to the app) seems kind of "un-Spring-y" to me?
Or, is there some other approach I should be taking?
(This is a working Spring application that had been using Spring 4.2.1 and Spring Data Release Train Gosling, that I'm attempting to upgrade to use Spring 5.0.0 and Spring Data Release Train Kay. As part of this I am starting with a fresh Elasticsearch install, and so I'm not sure if this error is coming from the upgrade or just b/c the install is clean).
In the SD ES, issues related to the parent-child relationship at now really poorly developed.
The problem is most likely due to the fact that you are using a clean installation of Elasticsearch. Before the update, the problem did not arise, because mappings have already been created. For the solution, you can use elasticsearchTemplate, which is part of SD ES, and ApplicationListener. It's simple. Just 3 steps.
Drop index in ES (it only needs one time):
curl -XDELETE [ES_IP]:9200/hr_index
Tell SD ES not to create indices and mappings automatically
// UserSearchResult.java
#Document(indexName = "hr_index", type = "user", createIndex = false)
public class UserSearchResult implements Serializable {
...
#Field(type=FieldType.keyword)
#Parent(type="department")
private String departmentCode;
...
}
// DepartmentSearchResult.java
#Document(indexName = "hr_index", type = "department", createIndex = false)
public class DepartmentSearchResult implements Serializable {
...
}
Add a ApplicationListener:
#Component
public class ApplicationStartupListener implements ApplicationListener<ContextRefreshedEvent> {
#Autowired
private ElasticsearchTemplate elasticsearchTemplate;
//Mapping for child must be created only if mapping for parents doesn't exist
#Override
public void onApplicationEvent(ContextRefreshedEvent event) {
elasticsearchTemplate.createIndex(DepartmentSearchResult.class);
try {
elasticsearchTemplate.getMapping(DepartmentSearchResult.class);
} catch (ElasticsearchException e) {
elasticsearchTemplate.putMapping(UserSearchResult.class);
elasticsearchTemplate.putMapping(DepartmentSearchResult.class);
}
}
}
P.S. Among other things, it is worth paying attention to the fact that with the release of ES 5.6, a process for removing types began. This inevitably entails the removal of the parent-child relationship. In one of the next releases of the SD ES, we will provide the opportunity to work with joins. Working with parent-child relationships is unlikely to be improved

MVC 5 Identity 2 - customer UserStore methods not being called

I am trying to implement a custom UserStore for my MVC 5 application so that I can delegate the database commands to my existing database project.
The tables in my database use integer keys, so I created a custom UserManager that inherits UserManager<User, int> instead of just UserManager<User>. For that reason, I also created a custom UserStore that implements IUserPasswordStore<User, int> instead of just IUserPasswordStore<User>.
Briefly:
public class CustomUserManager : UserManager<User, int>
{
public CustomUserManager(CustomUserStore store) : base(store)
{
}
}
public class CustomUserStore : IUserPasswordStore<User, int>
{
private readonly DbContext _db;
public CustomUserStore(DbContext db)
{
_db = db;
}
public Task<User> FindByIdAsync(int userId)
{
return _db.users.SingleOrDefaultAsync(u => u.Id == userId);
}
public Task UpdateAsync(User user)
{
_db.Entry(user).State = System.Data.Entity.EntityState.Modified;
return _db.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
Now, it seems that when I call UpdateAsync on CustomUserManager, it does not go through my custom CustomUserStore, but rather through some default implementation or something. The problem is evident because CustomUserManager.UpdateAsync() returns Task<IdentityResult>, while my implementation in CustomUserStore returns just Task. Hence there are no errors or anything, but the method is not being called. I think IUserPasswordStore<User, int> should have some method UpdateAsync that returns Task<IdentityResult> but it doesn't...
On the other hand, the FindByIdAsync method does work fine and calls the method in my CustomUserStore.
I am quite sure the problem is due to inheriting the classes with the custom key type (int in my case). Any example of a custom UserStore I can find online just uses the string keys and does not inherit IUserStore<User, int> but just IUserStore<User>.
However I can't figure out my problem. Perhaps I can just override all the methods in my CustomUserManager but that seems like a work-around rather than a solution. Is this a bug in the framework perhaps, I think the custom key types is still relatively new or even in alpha?
I know that this is an old question but I struggled yesterday with the same issue and after some time spent on it, I decided to take a look in the Identity source code and what I've found, almost made me smashed my head against the wall...
Simple, if you call UserManager.UpdateAsync, in the base class you will see that before the UserStore.UpdateAsync there is a validation that takes place, which, in my case, failed (doesn't matter the reason). So, please, be so kind and check in your class (controller class) the result of UpdateAsync which is an IdentityResult and more then sure the Succes result is false.
Evdin

L2S DataContext out of synch: row not found or changed

Psssst...!
Read on, by all means. But I can tell you here that the problem had nothing to do with the DataContext, but with Dependency Injection. I have left the question up, as it documents one possible issue with the "row not found or changed error" that has nothing to do with real world concurrency conflicts.
It seems the problems have been caused by badly written dependency injection. Or rather, I am beginning to believe, by default lifecycle management by the DI container I used.
The problem was that I used a DataContext as a constructor argument that was supplied by Ninject. It seems that the default behaviour was to cache this DataContext, leading to all manner of unexpected behaviour. I will ask a separate question about this.
Anyway, what follows is my original question, which as you will see, misses the real cause of the issue by a mile...
The Problem
I am getting a number of errors that imply that the DataContext, or rather, the way I am using the DataContext is getting out of synch.
The error occurs on db.SubmitChanges() where db is my DataContext instance. The error is:
Row not found or changed.
The problem only occurs intermitently, for example, adding a row then deleting it. If I stop the dev server and restart, the added row is there and I can delete it no problem.
Ie, it seems that the problem is related to the DataContext losing track of the rows that have been added.
IMPORTANT:
Before anyone votes to close this thread, on the basis of it being a duplicate, I have checked the sql server profiler and there is no "Where 0 = 1" in the SQL.
I have also recreated the dbml file, so am satisfied that the database schema is in synch with the schema represented by the dbml file.
Ie, no cases of mismatched nullable/not nullable columns, etc.
My Diagnosis (for what it is worth):
The problem seems (to me) related to how I am using the DataContext. I am new to MVC, Repositories and Services patterns, so suspect that I have wired things up wrong.
The Setup
Simple eLearning app in its early stages. Pupils need to be able to add and delete courses (Courses table) to their UserCourses.
To do this, I have a service that gets a specific DataContext instance Dependency Injected into its constructor.
Service Class Constructor:
public class SqlPupilBlockService : IPupilBlockService
{
DataContext db;
public SqlPupilBlockService(DataContext db)
{
this.db = db;
CoursesRepository = new SqlRepository<Course>(db);
UserCoursesRepository = new SqlRepository<UserCourse>(db);
}
// Etc, etc
}
The CoursesRepository and UserCoursesRepository are both private properties of the service class that are of type IRepository (just a simple generic repository interface).
SqlRepository Code:
public class SqlRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
DataContext db;
public SqlRepository(DataContext db)
{
this.db = db;
}
#region IRepository<T> Members
public IQueryable<T> Query
{
get { return db.GetTable<T>(); }
}
public List<T> FetchAll()
{
return Query.ToList();
}
public void Add(T entity)
{
db.GetTable<T>().InsertOnSubmit(entity);
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
db.GetTable<T>().DeleteOnSubmit(entity);
}
public void Save()
{
db.SubmitChanges();
}
#endregion
}
The two methods for adding and deleting UserCourses are:
Service Methods for Adding and Deleting UserCourses:
public void AddUserCourse(int courseId)
{
UserCourse uc = new UserCourse();
uc.IdCourse = courseId;
uc.IdUser = UserId;
uc.DateCreated = DateTime.Now;
uc.DateAmended = DateTime.Now;
uc.Role = "Pupil";
uc.CourseNotes = string.Empty;
uc.ActiveStepIndex = 0;
UserCoursesRepository.Add(uc);
UserCoursesRepository.Save();
}
public void DeleteUserCourse(int courseId)
{
var uc = (UserCoursesRepository.Query.Where(x => x.IdUser == UserId && x.IdCourse == courseId)).Single();
UserCoursesRepository.Delete(uc);
UserCoursesRepository.Save();
}
Ajax
I am using Ajax via Ajax.BeginForm
I don't think that is relevant.
ASP.NET MVC 3
I am using mvc3, but don't think that is relevant: the errors are related to model code.
The problem only occurs intermitently,
for example, adding a row then
deleting it. If I stop the dev server
and restart, the added row is there
and I can delete it no problem.
Your code does not show what the link is between the Added Row and the Delete/Update. Your Add() doesn't return an object reference.
I'm thinking you are missing a Refresh (ie reload the object after Insert). Is your IdCourse also the PK in the Table?
Edit:
Further research has revealed that the problem is with the dependency injection.
The problem was related to how Dependency Injection manages the items it creates. Google for 'lifecycle management' in IoC or DI. Essentially, DI cached a DataContext constructor argument that I injected.
For a way to solve this using the Factory Pattern, see this thread:
Ninject caching an injected DataContext? Lifecycle Management?
The accepted answer solved it all.

Error "More than one matching bindings are available" when using Ninject.Web.Mvc 2.0 and ASP.NET MVC 1.0

Recently I've switched to Ninject 2.0 release and started getting the following error:
Error occured: Error activating SomeController
More than one matching bindings are available.
Activation path:
1) Request for SomeController
Suggestions:
1) Ensure that you have defined a binding for SomeController only once.
However, I'm unable to find certain reproduction path. Sometimes it occurs, sometimes it does not.
I'm using NinjectHttpApplication for automatic controllers injection. Controllers are defined in separate assembly:
public class App : NinjectHttpApplication
{
protected override IKernel CreateKernel()
{
INinjectModule[] modules = new INinjectModule[] {
new MiscModule(),
new ProvidersModule(),
new RepositoryModule(),
new ServiceModule()
};
return new StandardKernel(modules);
}
protected override void OnApplicationStarted()
{
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
RegisterAllControllersIn("Sample.Mvc");
base.OnApplicationStarted();
}
/* ............. */
}
Maybe someone is familiar with this error.
Any advice?
I finally figured this issue out recently. Apparently, the NinjectHttpApplication.RegisterAllControllersIn() function doesn't do all of the proper bindings needed. It binds your concrete controller implementations to IController requests. For example, if you have a controller class called SampleMvcController, which inherits from System.Web.Mvc.Controller. It would do the following named binding during application start:
kernel.Bind<IController>().To(SampleMvcController).InTransientScope().Named("SampleMvc");
But when debugging the NinjectControllerFactory, I find that request are being made for the Ninject Kernel to return an object for the class "SampleMvcController", not for a concrete implementation of IController, using the named binding of "SampleMvc".
Because of this, when the first web request that involves the SampleMvcController is made, it creates a binding of SampleMvcController to itself. This is not thread safe though. So if you have several web requests being made at once, the bindings can potentially happen more than once, and now you are left with this error for having multiple bindings for the SampleMvcController.
You can verify this by quickly refreshing an MVC URL, right after causing your web application to restart.
The fix:
The simplest way to fix this issue is to create a new NinjectModule for your controller bindings, and to load this module during application start. Within this module, you self bind each of your defined controllers, like so:
class ControllerModule : StandardModule {
public override Load() {
Bind<SampleMvcController>().ToSelf();
Bind<AnotherMvcController>().ToSelf();
}
}
But if you don't mind changing the Ninject source code, you can modify the RegisterAllControllersIn() function to self bind each controller it comes across.
I have been dealing with this problem for months. I tried so many options but was unable to come to a solution. I knew that it was a threading problem because it would only occur when there was a heavy load on my site. Just recently a bug was reported and fixed in the ninject source code that solves this problem.
Here is a reference to the issue. It was fixed in build 2.1.0.70 of the Ninject source. The key change was in KernelBase.cs by removing the line
context.Plan = planner.GetPlan(service);
and replacing it with
lock (planner)
{
context.Plan = planner.GetPlan(service);
}
To use this new build with MVC you will need to get the latest build of Ninject then get the latest build of ninject.web.mvc. Build ninject.web.mvc with the new Ninject build.
I have been using this new build for about a week with a heavy load and no problems. That is the longest it has gone without a problem so I would consider this to be a solution.
Are you sure you really are creating a single completely new Kernel from scratch in your OnApplicationStarted every time it's invoked ? If you're not and you're actually creating it once but potentially running the registration bit twice. Remember that you're not guaranteed to only ever have one App class instantiated ever within a given AppDomain.
My answer was a bit more obvious.
I had declared the binding for one of my controllers more than once during refactor of my code.
I added this to my global.ascx.cs file:
public void RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly assembly)
{
RegisterAllControllersInFix(assembly, GetControllerName);
}
public void RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly assembly, Func<Type, string> namingConvention)
{
foreach (Type type in assembly.GetExportedTypes().Where(IsController))
Kernel.Bind(type).ToSelf();
}
private static bool IsController(Type type)
{
return typeof(IController).IsAssignableFrom(type) && type.IsPublic && !type.IsAbstract && !type.IsInterface;
}
private static string GetControllerName(Type type)
{
string name = type.Name.ToLowerInvariant();
if (name.EndsWith("controller"))
name = name.Substring(0, name.IndexOf("controller"));
return name;
}
Then called it from my OnApplicationStarted() method as follows:
RegisterAllControllersIn(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
Difficult to know whether this fixed it though because it's so intermittent.

Why getting a 202 in two equal setup structuremap code paths

In the C# language, using StructureMap 2.5.4, targeting .NET Framework 3.5 libraries.
I've taken the step to support multiple Profiles in a structure map DI setup, using ServiceLocator model with Bootstrapper activation. First setup was loading default registry, using the scanner.
Now I like to determine runtime what Registry configuration I like to use. Scanning and loading multiple assemblies with registries.
Seems it's not working for the actual implementation (Getting the 202, default instance not found), but a stripped test version does work. The following setup.
Two assemblies containing Registries and implementations
Scanning them in running AppDomain, providing the shared Interface, and requesting Creation Of Instance, using the interfaces in constructor (which get dealt with thanx to the profile on Invokation)
Working code sample below (same structure for other setup, but with more complex stuff, that get's a 202):
What type of couses are possible for a 202, specifically naming the System.Uri type, not being handles by a default type?? (uri makes no sense)
// let structure map create instance of class tester, that provides the registered
// interfaces in the registries to the constructor of tester.
public class Tester<TPOCO>
{
private ITestMe<TPOCO> _tester;
public Tester(ITestMe<TPOCO> some)
{
_tester = some;
}
public string Exec()
{
return _tester.Execute();
}
}
public static class Main {
public void ExecuteDIFunction() {
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Tester<string>>().Exec();
}
}
public class ImplementedTestMe<TSome> : ITestMe<TSome>
{
public string Execute()
{
return "Special Execution";
}
}
public class RegistryForSpecial : Registry
{
public RegistryForSpecial()
{
CreateProfile("Special",
gc =>
{
gc.For(typeof(ITestMe<>)).UseConcreteType(typeof(ImplementedTestMe<>));
});
}
}
Background articles on Profiles I used.
How to setup named instances using StructureMap profiles?
http://devlicio.us/blogs/derik_whittaker/archive/2009/01/07/setting-up-profiles-in-structuremap-2-5.aspx
http://structuremap.sourceforge.net/RegistryDSL.htm
EDIT:
It seemed the missing interface was actually the one being determined runtime. So here is the next challange (and solved):
I provided a default object whenever StructureMap needs to create the object. Like:
x.ForRequestedType<IConnectionContext>()
.TheDefault.Is.Object(new WebServiceConnection());
This way I got rid of the 202 error, because now a real instance could be used whever structure map needed the type.
Next was the override on runtime. That did not work out at first using the ObjectFactory.Configure method. Instead I used the ObjectFactory.Inject method to overide the default instance. Works like a charm.
ObjectFactory.Inject(typeof(IConnectionContext), context);
Loving the community effort.
Error code 202 means a default instance could not be built for the requested type. Your test code is apparently not equal to your real code that fails. If you are getting an error about Uri, you likely have a dependency that requires a Uri in its constructor. It may not be the class you are asking for - it may be one of that classes dependendencies - or one of the dependencies dependencies... somewhere down the line someone is asking StructureMap to resolve a Uri, which it cannot do, without some help from you.

Resources