I am using Entity Framework 4 (database-first approach) in my ASP.NET 4.0 Webforms app.
What I'm basically doing is fetching the entity to be edited from my ObjectContext, and displaying the fields the user should enter data into (or modify existing data) on a web form.
When time comes to store the data back, I'm reading out the values from the web form, building up a new Entity instance, and then I have a generic method called AddOrUpdate that detects whether this is a new entity (so it needs to insert it), or if it's an existing one (so it needs to update the existing data).
My method using the EntityKey and checks to see if the object context already knows about this object - very similar to what Cesar de la Torre of Microsoft shows here in his blog post:
public static void AddOrUpdate(ObjectContext context, EntityObject objectDetached)
{
if (objectDetached.EntityState == EntityState.Detached)
{
object currentEntityInDb = null;
if (context.TryGetObjectByKey(objectDetached.EntityKey, out currentEntityInDb))
{
// attach and update the existing entity
}
else
{
// insert new entity into entity set
context.AddObject(objectDetached.EntityKey.EntitySetName, objectDetached);
}
}
}
This worked just fine - for the longest time. But today, suddenly, out of the blue, I keep getting exceptions like this on the context.TryGetObjectByKey statement:
System.InvalidOperationException: Object mapping could not be found for Type with identity 'MyEntityType'
I cannot remember having changed anything in this core code at all - and the entity type is defined, the ID value that's stored in the EntityKey does indeed exist in the database... everything should be fine - but it keeps failing on me...
What on earth happened here??
I did find a few blog and forum posts on the topic, but none could really enlighten me or help me fix the issue. I must have messed up something - bad - but I really cannot see the forest for the trees - any hints?
Generally this sort of issue happens when EF cant find the assembly that has the type. With out seeing the full exception is difficult to figure out exactly but it seems your recent changes and the way you are using EF seems to be the cause.
EF ususally picks the type directly from the type itself when it has to access it using ObjectSet on the context. In the other cases where the type is not available from the context of the call it looks at the calling assembly and any dll's referenced by the calling assembly. Id it cant find it it throws the error message.
You can use the LoadFromAssembly method in the MetadataWorkspace of the context.
ObjectContext.MetadataWorkspace.LoadFromAssembly(assembly).
This way EF will know where to look for your types.
Related
It is an MVC application with Entity Framework Code First for the ORM and MEF as the IoC.
If I mark the DbContext with PartCreationPolicy.Shared there is an error saying the object already exists in the container every time I try to perform an edit.
But what if I simply mark the DbContext with PartCreationPolicy.NonShared so it gets created for every request?
Is there a terrible performance impact for that?
Update
Here is the code for save:
Provider IRepository<Provider>.Put(Provider item)
{
if (item.Id == Guid.Empty)
{
item.Id = Guid.NewGuid();
this.Providers.Add(item);
}
else this.Entry<Provider>(item).State = EntityState.Modified;
return item;
}
And this is the error when on Shared
An object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager.
The ObjectStateManager cannot track multiple objects with the same
key.
You should definitely use PartCreationPolicy.NonShared. Everything you can read about context lifecycle management, whether it's linq to sql, entity framework, or NHibernate (sessions), will agree upon one thing: the context should be short-lived. An easy rule of the thumb is: use it for one unit of work, which means: create a context, do stuff, call SaveChanges once, dispose. Most of the times this rule works well for me.
A shared (or singleton) context is the pattern that hits performance, because the context gets bloated over time. The change tracker needs to track more and more objects, relationship fixup will get slower. And you will find yourself refreshing (re-loading) entities time and again.
I am looking for a simple way to hydrate a related object. A Note belongs to a Document and only owners of a Document can add Notes so when a user tries to edit a Note, I need to hydrate the related Document in order to find out if the user has access to it. In my Service layer I have the following:
public void editNote(Note note)
{
// Get the associated Document object (required for validation) and validate.
int docID = noteRepository.Find(note.NoteID).DocumentID;
note.Document = documentRepository.Find(docID);
IDictionary<string, string> errors = note.validate();
if (errors.Count > 0)
{
throw new ValidationException(errors);
}
// Update Repository and save.
noteRepository.InsertOrUpdate(note);
noteRepository.Save();
}
Trouble is, noteRepository.InsertOrUpdate(note) throws an exception with "An object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager." when the repository sets EntityState.Modified. So a number of questions arise:
Am I approaching this correctly and if so, how do I get around the exception?
Currently, the controller edit action takes in a NoteCreateEditViewModel. Now this does have a DocumentID field as this is required when creating a new Note as we need to know which Document to attach it to. But for edit, I cannot use it as a malicious user could provide a DocumentID to which they do have access and thus edit a Note they don't own. So should there be seperate viewmodels for create and edit or can I just exclude the DocumentID somehow on edit? Or is there a better way to go about viewmodels such that an ID is not required?
Is there a better way to approach this? I have read that I should just have a Document repository as an aggregate and lose the Note repository but am not sure if/how this helps.
I asked a similar question related to this but it wasn't very clear so hoping this version will allow someone to understand and thus point me in the right direction.
EDIT
Based on the information provided by Ladislav Mrnka and the answer detailed here: An object with the same key already exists in the ObjectStateManager. The ObjectStateManager cannot track multiple objects with the same key, it seems that my repository method need to be like the following:
public void InsertOrUpdate(Note note)
{
if (note.NoteID == default(int)) {
// New entity
context.Notes.Add(note);
} else {
// Existing entity
//context.Entry(note).State = EntityState.Modified;
context.Entry(oldNote).CurrentValues.SetValues(note);
}
}
But how do I get the oldNote from the context? I could call context.Entry(Find(note.NoteID)).CurrentValues.SetValues(note) but am I introducing potential problems here?
Am I approaching this correctly and if so, how do I get around the exception?
I guess this part of your code loads the whole Node from the database to find DocumentID:
int docID = noteRepository.Find(note.NoteID).DocumentID;
In such case your InsertOrUpdate cannot take your node and attach it to context with Modified state because you already have note with the same key in the context. Common solution is to use this:
objectContext.NoteSet.ApplyCurrentValues(note);
objectContext.SaveChanges();
But for edit, I cannot use it as a malicious user could provide a DocumentID to which they do have access and thus edit a Note they don't own.
In such case you must add some security. You can add any data into hidden fields in your page but those data which mustn't be changed by the client must contain some additional security. For example second hidden field with either signature computed on server or hash of salted value computed on server. When the data return in the next request to the server, it must recompute and compare signature / hash with same salt and validate that the passed value and computed value are same. Sure the client mustn't know the secret you are using to compute signature or salt used in hash.
I have read that I should just have a Document repository as an aggregate and lose the Note repository but am not sure if/how this helps.
This is cleaner way to use repositories but it will not help you with your particular error because you will still need Note and DocumentId.
While updating with the help of LINQ to SQL using Entity Framework, an exception is thrown.
System.Data.UpdateException: Unable to update the EntitySet 't_emp' because it has
a DefiningQuery and no <UpdateFunction> element exists in the
<ModificationFunctionMapping>
The code for update is :
public void Updateall()
{
try
{
var tb = (from p in _te.t_emp
where p.id == "1"
select p).FirstOrDefault();
tb.ename = "jack";
_te.ApplyPropertyChanges(tb.EntityKey.EntitySetName, tb);
_te.SaveChanges(true);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
}
Why am I getting this error?
The problem was in the table structure. To avoid the error we have to make one primary key in the table. After that, update the edmx. The problem will be fixed
Three things:
Don't catch exceptions you can't handle. You're catching every exception possible, and then doing nothing with it (except swallowing it). That's a Bad Thing™ Do you really want to silently do nothing if anything goes wrong? That leads to corrupted state that's hard to debug. Not good.
Linq to SQL is an ORM, as is Entity Framework. You may be using LINQ to update the objects, but you're not using Linq to SQL, you're using Entity Framework (Linq to Entities).
Have you tried the solution outlined here? The exception you posted is somewhat cut off, so I can't be sure it's exactly the same (please update your post if it isn't), and if it is the same, can you comment on whether or not the following works for you?
"[..] Entity Framework doesn't know whether a given view is updatable
or not, so it adds the <DefiningQuery> element in order to safeguard
against having the framework attempt to generate queries against a
non-updatable view.
If your view is updatable you can simply remove the <DefiningQuery>
element from the EntitySet definition for your view inside of the
StorageModel section of your .edmx, and the normal update processing
will work as with any other table.
If your view is not updatable, you will have to provide the update
logic yourself through a "Modification Function Mapping". The
Modification Function Mapping calls a function defined in the
StorageModel section of your .edmx. That Function may contain the
name and arguments to a stored procedure in your database, or you can
use a "defining command" in order to write the insert, update, or
delete statement directly in the function definition within the
StorageModel section of your .edmx." (Emphasis mine, post formatted for clarity and for Stack Overflow)
(Source: "Mike" on MSDN)
But You can Set primary Key in Model if use MVC Asp.net
Just Open model.edmx in your table ,go to your field property and set Entity Key = True
We are trying to develop our own EF provider for our legacy APIs. We managed to get "GET/POST" operation working successfully.
However, for operation "PUT/MERGE", the method "CreateDbCommandDefinition" (of DbProviderServices implementation) fires twice. One with "DbQueryCommandTree" and another with "DbUpdateCommandTree".
I understand that it needs to fetch the entity prior to update it (for change tracking I guess). In our case, I don't need the entity information to be fetched prior to update. I simply want to call our legacy APIs with the entity sent for update. How can we strictly ask it to not to do the work of "DbQueryCommandTree" (and do only the work of "DbUpdateCommandTree") when I working with "PUT/MERGE" operations.
The client code looks something like the one below:
public void CustomerUpdateTest()
{
try
{
Ctxt.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking;
var oNewCus = new Customer()
{
MasterCustomerId = "1001",
SubCustomerId = "0",
FirstName = "abc",
LastName = "123"
};
Ctxt.AttachTo("Customers", oNewCus);
Ctxt.UpdateObject(oNewCus);
//Ctxt.SaveChanges();
Ctxt.SaveChanges(SaveChangesOptions.ReplaceOnUpdate);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Assert.Fail(ex.Message);
}
You will have to write your own IDataServiceUpdateProvider to make this happen. For EF, the in built EF update provider does 2 queries - one to get the entity which needs to be modified and one for the actual modification. We are planning to make this provider public in our next release, so folks can derive from it and just override one or more methods. But for now, you will have to implement the interface yourself.
For PUT/MERGE requests, WCF Data Services calls IDataServiceUpdateProvider.GetResource to get the entity to update. In your implementation of this method, you can return a token that represents the object that need to get modified (you will have to visit the expression tree that gets passed in this method to find out the entity set and the key value of the entity in question).
In SaveChanges, you can push the update based on the token. That way you can avoid one round trip to the database.
Hope this helps.
This question is very similiar to this one. However, the resolution to that question:
Does not seem to apply, or
Are somewhat suspect, and don't seem like a good approach to resolving the problem.
Basically, I'm iterating over a generic list of objects, and inserting them. Using MVC 2, EF 4 with the default code generation.
foreach(Requirement r in requirements)
{
var car = new CustomerAgreementRequirement();
car.CustomerAgreementId = viewModel.Agreement.CustomerAgreementId;
car.RequirementId = r.RequirementId;
_carRepo.Add(car); //Save new record
}
And the Repository.Add() method:
public class BaseRepository<TEntity> : IRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : class
{
private TxRPEntities txDB;
private ObjectSet<TEntity> _objectSet;
public void Add(TEntity entity)
{
SetUpdateParams(entity);
_objectSet.AddObject(entity);
txDB.SaveChanges();
}
I should note that I've been successfully using the Add() method throughout my code for single inserts; this is the first time I've tried to use it to iteratively insert a group of objects.
The error:
System.InvalidOperationException: The changes to the database were committed successfully, but an error occurred while updating the object context. The ObjectContext might be in an inconsistent state. Inner exception message: AcceptChanges cannot continue because the object's key values conflict with another object in the ObjectStateManager. Make sure that the key values are unique before calling AcceptChanges.
As stated in the prior question, the EntityKey is set to True, StoreGeneratedPattern = Identity. The actual table that is being inserted into is a relationship table, in that it is comprised of an identity field and two foreign key fields. The error always occurs on the second insert, regardless of whether that specific entity has been inserted before or not, and I can confirm that the values are always different, no key conflicts as far as the database is concerned. My suspicion is that it has something to do with the temporary entitykey that gets set prior to the actual insert, but I don't know how to confirm that, nor do I know how to resolve it.
My gut feeling is that the solution in the prior question, to set the SaveOptions to None, would not be the best solution. (See prior discussion here)
I've had this issue with my repository using a loop as well and thought that it might be caused by some weird race-like condition. What I've done is refactor out a UnitOfWork class, so that the repository.add() method is strictly adding to the database, but not storing the context. Thus, the repository is only responsible for the collection itself, and every operation on that collection happens in the scope of the unit of work.
The issue there is that: In a loop, you run out of memory damn fast with EF4. So you do need to store the changes periodically, I just don't store after every save.
public class BaseRepository : IRepository where TEntity : class
{
private TxRPEntities txDB;
private ObjectSet _objectSet;
public void Add(TEntity entity)
{
SetUpdateParams(entity);
_objectSet.AddObject(entity);
}
public void Save()
{
txDB.SaveChanges();
}
Then you can do something like
foreach(Requirement r in requirements)
{
var car = new CustomerAgreementRequirement();
car.CustomerAgreementId = viewModel.Agreement.CustomerAgreementId;
car.RequirementId = r.RequirementId;
_carRepo.Add(car); //Save new record
if (some number limiting condition if you have thousands)
_carRepo.Save(); // To save periodically and clear memory
}
_carRepo.Save();
Note: I don't really like this solution, but I hunted around to try to find why things break in a loop when they work elsewhere, and that's the best I came up with.
We have had some odd collision issues if the entity is not added to the context directly after being created (before doing any assignments). The only time I've noticed the issue is when adding objects in a loop.
Try adding the newed up entity to the context, do the assignments, then save the context. Also, you don't need to save the context each time you add a new entity unless you absolutely need the primary key.