Let's say I have this code:
class Score
{
public Update(int score)
{
update score but do not call (context.SaveChanges())
}
}
class Foo
{
public DoSomething(int update)
{
Score score = new Score();
score.Update(2);
SomeObj obj = (select object);
obj.Soo = 3;
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
Basically to make it work, I need to explicity provide SaveChanges in method Update. But when I have 4 such methods in row, and 34243 users want to update data, I don't think saving for each one in 4 trips would be a good idea.
Is there way in EF4.1 to delay database update the last moment, in provided example, Or I'm forced to explicity save for each method ?
EDIT:
For clarification. I tried to do not call SaveChanges in external method, and only one time where the changes mu be saved.
I will give an real example:
public class ScoreService : IScoreService
{
private JamiContext _ctx;
private IRepository<User> _usrRepo;
public ScoreService(IRepository<User> usrRepo)
{
_ctx = new JamiContext();
_usrRepo = usrRepo;
}
public void PostScore(int userId, GlobalSettings gs, string name)
{
User user = _ctx.UserSet.Where(x => x.Id == userId).FirstOrDefault();
if (name == "up")
{
user.Rating = user.Rating + gs.ScoreForLike;
}
else if (name == "down")
{
user.Rating = user.Rating - Math.Abs(gs.ScoreForDislike);
}
}
}
And Now:
public PostRating LikeDislike(User user, int postId, int userId, GlobalSettings set, string name)
{
PostRating model = new PostRating();
var post = (from p in _ctx.PostSet
where p.Id == postId
select p).FirstOrDefault();
if (name == "up")
{
post.Like = post.Like + 1;
model.Rating = post.Like - post.Dislike;
}
else if (name == "down")
{
post.Dislike = post.Dislike + 1;
model.Rating = post.Like - post.Dislike;
}
PostVote pv = new PostVote();
pv.PostId = post.Id;
pv.UserId = user.Id;
_ctx.PostVoteSet.Add(pv);
_scoreSrv.PostScore(userId, set, name);
_ctx.SaveChanges();
return model;
}
I this case user rating do not update, Until I call SaveChanges in PostScore
In your example it looks like PostScore and LikeDislike use different context instances. That is the source of your problem and there is no way to avoid calling multiple SaveChanges in that case. The whole operation is single unit of work and because of that it should use single context instance. Using multiple context instances in this case is wrong design.
Anyway even if you call single SaveChanges you will still have separate roundtrip to the database for each updated, inserted or deleted entity because EF doesn't support command batching.
The way to delay database update to the last moment is by not calling SaveChanges until the last moment.
You have complete control over this code, and if your code is calling SaveChanges after every update, then that needs changing.
This not really solves my entire problem, but at least I can use single instance of Context:
With Ninject:
Bind<JamiContext>().To<JamiContext>().InRequestScope();
And then constructor:
private JamiContext _ctx;
private IRepository<User> _usrRepo;
public ScoreService(IRepository<User> usrRepo, JamiContext ctx)
{
_ctx = ctx;
_usrRepo = usrRepo;
}
Related
I'm trying to update a value in an existing row of a database but I can't seem to get the changes to stick. the code in my controller currently looks like this:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult AddCredit(int employeeNumber, decimal amount)
{
var employee = new GetEmployeeForEmployeeNumber<Employee>(employeeNumber).Query().FirstOrDefault();
var employeeAccount = new GetEmployeeAccountForId<EmployeeAccount>(employee.Id).Query().FirstOrDefault();
employeeAccount.Credit = employeeAccount.Credit + amount;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Home", new { employeeNumber });
}
Based on research that I've done into the subject, this should work as I've modelled it off working example. The Credit does increase by the given amount but after the db.SaveChanges, the values in the database are still as they were.
Am I missing something obvious?
Edit:
The GetEmployeeAccountForId looks like this:
public class GetEmployeeAccountForId<T>
{
private TestContext db = new TestContext();
private readonly int _id;
public GetEmployeeAccountForId(int id)
{
_id = id;
}
public IQueryable<EmployeeAccount> Query()
{
return from employeeAcount in db.EmployeeAccounts
where employeeAcount.Id == _id
select employeeAcount;
}
}
Try this:
employeeAccount.Credit = employeeAccount.Credit + amount;
db.Entry(employeeAccount).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
Update
You have to "tell" EF to track changes of editet entity, that's why
db.Entry(employeeAccount).State = EntityState.Modified
is required.
But You also shoudn't use 2 different instances of one DbContext. I highly recomend using DI, and set DbContext life time to instance per request.
Currently I am doing like this:
For Example:
public update(Person model)
{
// Here model is model return from form on post
var oldobj = db.Person.where(x=>x.ID = model.ID).SingleOrDefault();
db.Entry(oldobj).CurrentValues.SetValues(model);
}
It works, but for example,
I have 50 columns in my table but I displayed only 25 fields in my form (I need to partially update my table, with remaining 25 column retain same old value)
I know it can be achieve by "mapping columns one by one" or by creating "hidden fields for those remaining 25 columns".
Just wondering is there any elegant way to do this with less effort and optimal performance?
This is a very good question. By default I have found that as long as change tracking is enabled (it is by default unless you turn it off), Entity Framework will do a good job of applying to the database only what you ask it to change.
So if you only change 1 field against the object and then call SaveChanges(), EF will only update that 1 field when you call SaveChanges().
The problem here is that when you map a view model into an entity object, all of the values get overwritten. Here is my way of handling this:
In this example, you have a single entity called Person:
Person
======
Id - int
FirstName - varchar
Surname - varchar
Dob - smalldatetime
Now let's say we want to create a view model which will only update Dob, and leave all other fields exactly how they are, here is how I do that.
First, create a view model:
public class PersonDobVm
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public DateTime Dob { get; set; }
public void MapToModel(Person p)
{
p.Dob = Dob;
}
}
Now write the code roughly as follows (you'll have to alter it to match your context name etc):
DataContext db = new DataContext();
Person p = db.People.FirstOrDefault();
// you would have this posted in, but we are creating it here just for illustration
var vm = new PersonDobVm
{
Id = p.Id, // the Id you want to update
Dob = new DateTime(2015, 1, 1) // the new DOB for that row
};
vm.MapToModel(p);
db.SaveChanges();
The MapToModel method could be even more complicated and do all kinds of additional checks before assigning the view model fields to the entity object.
Anyway, the result when SaveChanges is called is the following SQL:
exec sp_executesql N'UPDATE [dbo].[Person]
SET [Dob] = #0
WHERE ([Id] = #1)
',N'#0 datetime2(7),#1 int',#0='2015-01-01 00:00:00',#1=1
So you can clearly see, Entity Framework has not attempted to update any other fields - just the Dob field.
I know in your example you want to avoid coding each assignment by hand, but I think this is the best way. You tuck it all away in your VM so it does not litter your main code, and this way you can cater for specific needs (i.e. composite types in there, data validation, etc). The other option is to use an AutoMapper, but I do not think they are safe. If you use an AutoMapper and spelt "Dob" as "Doob" in your VM, it would not map "Doob" to "Dob", nor would it tell you about it! It would fail silently, the user would think everything was ok, but the change would not be saved.
Whereas if you spelt "Dob" as "Doob" in your VM, the compiler will alert you that the MapToModel() is referencing "Dob" but you only have a property in your VM called "Doob".
I hope this helps you.
I swear by EntityFramework.Extended. Nuget Link
It lets you write:
db.Person
.Where(x => x.ID == model.ID)
.Update(p => new Person()
{
Name = newName,
EditCount = p.EditCount+1
});
Which is very clearly translated into SQL.
Please try this way
public update(Person model)
{
// Here model is model return from form on post
var oldobj = db.Person.where(x=>x.ID = model.ID).SingleOrDefault();
// Newly Inserted Code
var UpdatedObj = (Person) Entity.CheckUpdateObject(oldobj, model);
db.Entry(oldobj).CurrentValues.SetValues(UpdatedObj);
}
public static object CheckUpdateObject(object originalObj, object updateObj)
{
foreach (var property in updateObj.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if (property.GetValue(updateObj, null) == null)
{
property.SetValue(updateObj,originalObj.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name)
.GetValue(originalObj, null));
}
}
return updateObj;
}
I have solved my Issue by using FormCollection to list out used element in form, and only change those columns in database.
I have provided my code sample below; Great if it can help someone else
// Here
// collection = FormCollection from Post
// model = View Model for Person
var result = db.Person.Where(x => x.ID == model.ID).SingleOrDefault();
if (result != null)
{
List<string> formcollist = new List<string>();
foreach (var key in collection.ToArray<string>())
{
// Here apply your filter code to remove system properties if any
formcollist.Add(key);
}
foreach (var prop in result.GetType().GetProperties())
{
if( formcollist.Contains(prop.Name))
{
prop.SetValue(result, model.GetType().GetProperty(prop.Name).GetValue(model, null));
}
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
I still didn't find a nice solution for my problem, so I created a work around. When loading the Entity, I directly make a copy of it and name it entityInit. When saving the Entity, I compare the both to see, what really was changed. All the unchanged Properties, I set to unchanged and fill them with the Database-Values. This was necessary for my Entities without Tracking:
// load entity without tracking
var entityWithoutTracking = Context.Person.AsNoTracking().FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == _entity.ID);
var entityInit = CopyEntity(entityWithoutTracking);
// do business logic and change entity
entityWithoutTracking.surname = newValue;
// for saving, find entity in context
var entity = Context.Person.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ID == _entity.ID);
var entry = Context.Entry(entity);
entry.CurrentValues.SetValues(entityWithoutTracking);
entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
// get List of all changed properties (in my case these are all existing properties, including those which shouldn't have changed)
var changedPropertiesList = entry.CurrentValues.PropertyNames.Where(x => entry.Property(x).IsModified).ToList();
foreach (var checkProperty in changedPropertiesList)
{
try
{
var p1 = entityWithoutTracking.GetType().GetProperty(checkProperty).GetValue(entityWithoutTracking);
var p2 = entityInit.GetType().GetProperty(checkProperty).GetValue(entityInit);
if ((p1 == null && p2 == null) || p1.Equals(p2))
{
entry.Property(checkProperty).CurrentValue = entry.Property(checkProperty).OriginalValue; // restore DB-Value
entry.Property(checkProperty).IsModified = false; // throws Exception for Primary Keys
}
} catch(Exception) { }
}
Context.SaveChanges(); // only surname will be updated
This is way I did it, assuming the new object has more columns to update that the one we want to keep.
if (theClass.ClassId == 0)
{
theClass.CreatedOn = DateTime.Now;
context.theClasses.Add(theClass);
}
else {
var currentClass = context.theClasses.Where(c => c.ClassId == theClass.ClassId)
.Select(c => new TheClasses {
CreatedOn = c.CreatedOn
// Add here others fields you want to keep as the original record
}).FirstOrDefault();
theClass.CreatedOn = currentClass.CreatedOn;
// The new class will replace the current, all fields
context.theClasses.Add(theClass);
context.Entry(theClass).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
context.SaveChanges();
In EF you can do like this
var result = db.Person.Where(x => x.ID == model.ID).FirstOrDefault();
if(result != null){
result.Name = newName;
result.DOB = newDOB;
db.Person.Update(result);
}
Or you can use
using (var db= new MyDbContext())
{
var result= db.Person.Where(x => x.ID == model.ID).FirstOrDefault();
result.Name= newName;
result.DOB = newDOB;
db.Update(result);
db.SaveChanges();
}
For more detail please EntityFramework Core - Update Only One Field
No Worry guys
Just write raw sql query
db.Database.ExecuteSqlCommand("Update Person set Name='"+_entity.Name+"' where Id = " + _entity.ID + "");
I want to add a relationship between multiple existing entities and another existing entity. Here is my model:
public class Term
{
public int TermId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<SubForm> SubForms { get; set; }
}
public class SubForm
{
public int SubFormId { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Term> Terms { get; set; }
}
I have an update repository method as follows:
public IQueryable<Term> GetTerms()
{
IQueryable<Term> query = db.Terms.AsNoTracking();
return query;
}
public Term UpdateTerm(Term term, IEnumerable<Expression<Func<Term, object>>> properties)
{
if (term.TermId == 0)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Term does not exist");
}
db.Terms.Attach(term);
if (properties != null)
{
foreach (var selector in properties)
{
string propertyName = Helpers.PropertyToString(selector.Body);
db.Entry(term).Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
}
}
db.SaveChanges();
return term;
}
Now I assume this would work when I make this call in my service layer:
public void AddFormToTerm(int termId, int formId)
{
var term = termsRepository.GetTerms().FirstOrDefault(t => t.TermId == termId);
var subForms = termsRepository.GetSubForms().Where(t => t.FormId == formId);
//I assume this would work by adding existing forms to an existing term.
foreach (var subForm in subForms)
{
term.SubForms.Add(subForm);
}
termsRepository.UpdateTerm(term, null);
}
Unfortunately, this doesn't get updated, there is nothing in the intermediate table when I checked the database. No exception was also thrown.
Using AsNoTracking in this case is the problem. Without AsNoTracking it will work. You must keep in mind that you can update a many-to-many relationship only with the change tracking mechanism. But in your code the EF context will know about term and the SubForms collection for the first time when you call Attach in your UpdateTerm method. EF does not notice that you did add the SubForms to the term because those entities were not attached to the context (since you used AsNoTracking = "EF, please do not attach to the context!"). But after Attach nothing happened anymore before you called SaveChanges = No change = No database commands.
So removing AsNoTracking (or creating another method or a parameter to load with tracking) is the best option. Everything else will involve ugly "tricks" like this:
public Term UpdateTerm(Term term, ...)
{
//...
// Restore the state before adding the subforms = current state in DB
var tempSubForms = term.SubForms;
term.SubForms = null;
// Inform EF about this state = term exists, subforms exist
// in DB but no relationships
db.Terms.Attach(term);
foreach (var subForm in tempSubForms)
db.SubForms.Attach(subForm);
// Change the state: EF change tracking recognizes this
term.SubForms = tempSubForms;
//...
// EF now will send INSERT statements for the join table
db.SaveChanges();
return term;
}
I am having trouble understanding if I am doing this correctly or not. I have 3 entities that are dependent on each other. I am trying to add new objects to these entities and then call save changes ultimately adding the corresponding records to the tables honoring the FK constraints.
I am getting the error:
The relationship between the two objects cannot be defined because they are attached to different ObjectContext objects.
In my code I am parsing some XML with linq while adding the new objects to the context as I go. In my service layer I have the following method to handle processing the incoming data.
public void ProcessSurvey(int surveyContentId, int caseNo, string surveyTitle, string reportVersion, string reportXml)
{
// get surveyid
var surveyContent = _surveyContentRepository.GetSurveyContent(surveyContentId);
// create response obj
var surveyResponse = new SurveyResponse()
{
SurveyId = surveyContent.SurveyId,
CaseNo = caseNo,
SurveyTitle = surveyTitle,
ReportVersion = reportVersion,
Created = DateTime.Now,
ResponseXML = reportXml
};
// add response obj to context?
_surveyResponseRepository.Add(surveyResponse);
// get the questions elements from the xml data
var questions = SurveyResponseHelper.GetResponseQuestions(reportXml);
// iterate over questions
foreach (XElement question in questions)
{
SurveyQuestion thisSurveyQuestion = SurveyResponseHelper.ProcSurveyQuestion(question, surveyContentId);
// add question?
_surveyQuestionRepository.Add(thisSurveyQuestion);
// get question answer
SurveyAnswer thisSurveyAnswer = SurveyResponseHelper.GetAnswer(question);
//update the answer with the question and response obj to satisfy the FK reference
thisSurveyAnswer.SurveyQuestion = thisSurveyQuestion;
thisSurveyAnswer.SurveyResponse = surveyResponse; // This is where it breaks ERRROR: The relationship between the two objects cannot be defined because they are attached to different ObjectContext objects
_surveyAnswerRepository.Add(thisSurveyAnswer);
}
//commit
_surveyAnswerRepository.Save();
}
My Repositories look like this..
public interface ISurveyAnswerRepository
{
void Add(SurveyAnswer surveyAnswer);
void Save();
}
public class SurveyAnswerRepository : Repository, ISurveyAnswerRepository
{
//private DiversionProgramsEntities _db;
public SurveyAnswerRepository()
{
//_db = new DiversionProgramsEntities();
}
public void Add(SurveyAnswer surveyAnswer)
{
this.DataContext.SurveyAnswers.AddObject(surveyAnswer);
}
public void Save()
{
this.DataContext.SaveChanges();
}
my base repository
public class Repository
{
private DiversionProgramsEntities _dataContext;
public DiversionProgramsEntities DataContext
{
get { return _dataContext ?? (_dataContext = DatabaseFactory.CreateContext()); }
}
}
and static class / method to create the context
public static class DatabaseFactory
{
public static DiversionProgramsEntities CreateContext()
{
return new DiversionProgramsEntities();
}
}
here is my helper code..
public class SurveyResponseHelper
{
public static IEnumerable<XElement> GetResponseQuestions(string xmlResponseData)
{
XElement xmlData = XElement.Parse(xmlResponseData);
var questions = from n in xmlData.Descendants()
where n.Parent.Name.LocalName == "questions"
select n;
return questions;
}
public static SurveyQuestion ProcSurveyQuestion(XElement question, int surveyContentId)
{
// get the question type
var questionType = question.Name.LocalName;
// get question element text. This is the actual question text
var questionText = question.Elements().Where(e => e.Name.LocalName == "direction").SingleOrDefault().Value;
// check to see if this question exists in the data table, if it does then we will use the questionid from that which will get used to tie the SurveyAnswer to this question.
// if question does not already exist then a new one will be created
SurveyQuestionRepository surveyQuestionRepository = new SurveyQuestionRepository();
SurveyQuestion surveyQuestion;
surveyQuestion = surveyQuestionRepository.GetSurveyQuestion(surveyContentId, questionType, questionText);
if (surveyQuestion == null)
{
surveyQuestion = new SurveyQuestion()
{
QuestionText = questionText,
QuestionType = questionType,
SurveyContentId = surveyContentId
};
}
return surveyQuestion;
}
public static SurveyAnswer GetAnswer(XElement question)
{
// get the answer index value
var answers = question.Elements().Where(e => e.Name.LocalName == "answers").SingleOrDefault();
int userAnswerIndex = Int32.Parse(answers.Attribute("userAnswerIndex").Value);
// move the answers to an array so we can use the index to get the correct answer
XElement[] answersArray = answers.Elements().ToArray();
SurveyAnswer answer = new SurveyAnswer()
{
AnswerText = answersArray[userAnswerIndex].Value
};
return answer;
}
}
It looks like the error is describing perfectly what is going on. In the following line:
var questions = SurveyResponseHelper.GetResponseQuestions(reportXml);
You are getting a question from another class. That class probably creates it's own object context.
You can't attach a question to the answer if they are from different object contexts.
To solve this, the easiest way is to add a parameter to your methods GetResponseQuestions for the datacontext, so your other method can use that the repositories datacontext to get the questions.
Also, various IoC methods would simplify this.
Where does your _surveyContentRepository come from? If it's static I could see a scenario where that holds on to a SurveyContent object which is attached to one DiversionProgramsEntities, and your ProcSurveyQuestion() method finds and returns an existing SurveyQuestion, attached to a different DiversionProgramsEntities.
Other than that, I think a general pointer I can give you is to assign objects to each other using the objects themselves rather than the object Ids, so instead of:
var surveyResponse = new SurveyResponse { SurveyId = surveyContent.SurveyId }
...use:
var surveyResponse = new SurveyResponse { Survey = surveyContent }
This automatically adds your new SurveyResponse object to the same object context to which the SurveyContent object belongs, and means you don't have to manually add anything to a repository. You can assemble your entire object graph like this, then call Save() on the repository you used to retrieve the first object to save the whole thing.
As #TimHoolihan stated the issue is that you are not using the same Data Context for accessing the Survey Responses and Survey Questions and actually I believe the issue lines in the line below from the ProcSurveyQuestion method.
SurveyQuestionRepository surveyQuestionRepository = new SurveyQuestionRepository();
I see that you have a singleton DataContext in the DiversionProgramsEntities class, but I cannot infer from your code if the SurveyQuestionRepository and SurveryResponseRepositories are also using that same context. Based on the error you are getting, I am guessing that they are using separate contexts, so again as #TimHoolihan suggested, you need to modify your code to use the same context for both.
You should also look into the UnitOfWork pattern as this is what you are trying to accomplish here, but you do not have a common context to track all of your changes across.
I have been scratching my head all morning behind this but still haven't been able to figure out what might be causing this.
I have a composite repository object that references two other repositories. I'm trying to instantiate a Model type in my LINQ query (see first code snippet).
public class SqlCommunityRepository : ICommunityRepository
{
private WebDataContext _ctx;
private IMarketRepository _marketRepository;
private IStateRepository _stateRepository;
public SqlCommunityRepository(WebDataContext ctx, IStateRepository stateRepository, IMarketRepository marketRepository)
{
_ctx = ctx;
_stateRepository = stateRepository;
_marketRepository = marketRepository;
}
public IQueryable<Model.Community> Communities
{
get
{
return (from comm in _ctx.Communities
select new Model.Community
{
CommunityId = comm.CommunityId,
CommunityName = comm.CommunityName,
City = comm.City,
PostalCode = comm.PostalCode,
Market = _marketRepository.GetMarket(comm.MarketId),
State = _stateRepository.GetState(comm.State)
}
);
}
}
}
The repository objects that I'm passing in look like this
public class SqlStateRepository : IStateRepository
{
private WebDataContext _ctx;
public SqlStateRepository(WebDataContext ctx)
{
_ctx = ctx;
}
public IQueryable<Model.State> States
{
get
{
return from state in _ctx.States
select new Model.State()
{
StateId = state.StateId,
StateName = state.StateName
};
}
}
public Model.State GetState(string stateName)
{
var s = (from state in States
where state.StateName.ToLower() == stateName
select state).FirstOrDefault();
return new Model.State()
{
StateId = s.StateId,
StateName = s.StateName
};
}
AND
public class SqlMarketRepository : IMarketRepository
{
private WebDataContext _ctx;
public SqlMarketRepository(WebDataContext ctx)
{
_ctx = ctx;
}
public IQueryable<Model.Market> Markets
{
get
{
return from market in _ctx.Markets
select new Model.Market()
{
MarketId = market.MarketId,
MarketName = market.MarketName,
StateId = market.StateId
};
}
}
public Model.Market GetMarket(int marketId)
{
return (from market in Markets
where market.MarketId == marketId
select market).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
This is how I'm wiring it all up:
WebDataContext ctx = new WebDataContext();
IMarketRepository mr = new SqlMarketRepository(ctx);
IStateRepository sr = new SqlStateRepository(ctx);
ICommunityRepository cr = new SqlCommunityRepository(ctx, sr, mr);
int commCount = cr.Communities.Count();
The last line in the above snippet is where it fails. When I debug through the instantiation (new Model.Community), it never goes into any of the other repository methods. I do not have a relationship between the underlying tables behind these three objects. Would this be the reason that LINQ to SQL is not able to build the expression tree right?
These are non-hydrated queries, not fully-hydrated collections.
The Communities query differs from the other two because it calls methods as objects are hydrated. These method calls are not translatable to SQL.
Normally this isn't a problem. For example: if you say Communities.ToList(), it will work and the methods will be called from the objects as they are hydrated.
If you modify the query such that the objects aren't hydrated, for example: when you say Communities.Count(), linq to sql attempts to send the method calls into the database and throws since it cannot. It does this even though those method calls ultimately would not affect the resulting count.
The simplest fix (if you truly expect fully hydrated collections) is to add ToList to the community query, hydrating it.
Try adding another repository method that looks like this:
public int CommunitiesCount()
{
get { return _ctx.Communities.Count(); }
}
This will allow you to return a count without exposing the entire object tree to the user, which is what I think you're trying to do anyway.
As you may have already guessed, I suspect that what you are calling the anonymous types are at fault (they're not really anonymous types; they are actual objects, which you are apparently partially populating in an effort to hide some of the fields from the end user).