Context:
Code First, Entity Framework 4.3.1;
User ---- Topic, 1 to Many relation;
User with public virtual ICollection<Topic> CreatedTopics Navigation Property(Lazy Loading);
Topic with public virtual User Creator Navigation Property;
DataServiceController : DbDataController<DefaultDbContext>, Web API beta, ASP.NET MVC 4 Beta , Single Page Application;
System.Json for Json serialization;
Web API Action:
public IQueryable<Topic> GetTopics()
{
// return DbContext.Topics; // OK
return DbContext.Topics.Include("Creator"); //With Exception
}
Result: "an unhandled microsoft .net framework exception occurred in w3wp.exe"
The Problem here seems to be: I should not Add Navigation Property in both Entities(Cause Circular Reference?), and if I delete the CreatedTopics Navigation Property in User Class, It will be OK again.
So, In a similar Context like listed above, Here are my questions:
How to deal with Navigation Properties in the situation of 1 to Many relation;
Further more, how about a Many to Many relation, do i have to divide it into two 1 to Many relations;
What is the Best Practices and Precautions of using Navigation Properties?
I Have read many related posts, but still not clear enough :(,
Thanks for any help!
Dean
This is not a problem of code first or EF - it is a problem of serialization. Simply the serializer used to convert your object graph to some representation passed in a Web API message is not able to work with circular references by default. Depending on the message format you want to use Web API uses different serializers by default - here is more about default serializers used by Web API and about the way how to change it. The following text suppose that you are using DataContractJsonSerializer or DataContractSerializer (should be default for XML serialization) but the same is possible for JSON.NET (should be default for JSON serialization - JSON serialization can be switched to DataContractJsonSerializer but the default serializer is better).
So what you can do? You can tell the serializer that it should track those circular references by marking your classes with DataContract(IsReference = true) and each passed property with DataMember attribute (check the linked article for description how to achieve it with JSON.NET). This will allow serializer correctly recognizing cycles and the serialization will in theory succeed. In theory because this also demands to not using lazy loading. Otherwise you can serialize much more data than you expected (in some catastrophic scenarios it can lead to serializing whole content of your database).
When you serialize entity graph with lazy loading enabled you serailze a Topic and its Creator but serialization will also visit CreatedTopics property => all related topics are lazy loaded and processed by serialization and serialization continues to visit Creator of all newly loaded topics! This process continues until there is no other object to lazy load. Because of this you should never use lazy loading when serializing entities.
Other option is to exclude back reference from serialization. You just need to serialize Creator. You don't need to serialize CreatedTopics so you can mark the property with IgnoreDataMember attribute (JsonIgnore for JSON.NET). The problem is that if you also have Web API action for returning User with all his CreateTopics this will not work because of the attribute.
The last option is not using entities. This option is usually used in web services where you create special DTO objects satisfying requirements for specific operation and you handle conversion between entities and DTOs inside the operation (possible with help of some tool like AutoMapper).
There is no difference between handling one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many relations. If you have navigation properties on both sides you must always deal with this problem.
What should I do if I have a Model which properties have to be filled from multiple tables from the EDMX file?
Should the Controller or specific actions do this work for me? Or is EF the wrong technology in this case because I [maybe] have to execute multiple statements to built a single model object for my view?
Update: Why is nobody mentioning ViewModels? I think this is the way to go? http://jabbr.net/#/rooms/aspnetmvc - One of the guys told me that it´s a standard approach to build a model from multiple entities from the db. So I´ll accept that?! Can anyone please give me a last "OK" on that? I think all this stuff has confused me because my mind wasn´t clear about the term "Model". I doesn´t have to be a 1:1 relationship and what I´m actually working with are VIEWmodels... right?
Code First approach. This way you control how the db maps to your model.
I ended up creating ViewModel classes.
I'm trying to introduce ASP.Net MVC to my department. I am encouraging them to have a ViewModel per View and AutoMapper for our larger projects (and ideally in general).
Sometimes this means having one large entity and picking 5 of its properties and creating the ViewModel. This is done by looking at the the edmx model (many projects were existing so it was DB first) and then creating matching properties in a ViewModel class. Obviously names etc have to match for AutoMapper to work. Also for navigation properties you have to add the navigation name first. Ideally also being able to type in a display name etc.
I'm trying to ease them into doing this (what they see as extra work). Is there any tool that would load a list of fields and allow you to select via checkbox etc and create the class from that?
I guess the same would apply to DTOs etc
Thanks
Have you tried this http://www.codesmithtools.com/product/generator
you can create a template of the dto and then it will generate the files/dto's for you as needed from any kind of datasource.
Entity Framework 4, POCO objects and ASP.Net MVC2. I have a many to many relationship, lets say between BlogPost and Tag entities. This means that in my T4 generated POCO BlogPost class I have:
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags {
// getter and setter with the magic FixupCollection
}
private ICollection<Tag> _tags;
I ask for a BlogPost and the related Tags from an instance of the ObjectContext and send it to another layer (View in the MVC application). Later I get back the updated BlogPost with changed properties and changed relationships. For example it had tags "A" "B" and "C", and the new tags are "C" and "D". In my particular example there are no new Tags and the properties of the Tags never change, so the only thing which should be saved is the changed relationships. Now I need to save this in another ObjectContext. (Update: Now I tried to do in the same context instance and also failed.)
The problem: I can't make it save the relationships properly. I tried everything I found:
Controller.UpdateModel and Controller.TryUpdateModel don't work.
Getting the old BlogPost from the context then modifying the collection doesn't work. (with different methods from the next point)
This probably would work, but I hope this is just a workaround, not the solution :(.
Tried Attach/Add/ChangeObjectState functions for BlogPost and/or Tags in every possible combinations. Failed.
This looks like what I need, but it doesn't work (I tried to fix it, but can't for my problem).
Tried ChangeState/Add/Attach/... the relationship objects of the context. Failed.
"Doesn't work" means in most cases that I worked on the given "solution" until it produces no errors and saves at least the properties of BlogPost. What happens with the relationships varies: usually Tags are added again to the Tag table with new PKs and the saved BlogPost references those and not the original ones. Of course the returned Tags have PKs, and before the save/update methods I check the PKs and they are equal to the ones in the database so probably EF thinks that they are new objects and those PKs are the temp ones.
A problem I know about and might make it impossible to find an automated simple solution: When a POCO object's collection is changed, that should happen by the above mentioned virtual collection property, because then the FixupCollection trick will update the reverse references on the other end of the many-to-many relationship. However when a View "returns" an updated BlogPost object, that didn't happen. This means that maybe there is no simple solution to my problem, but that would make me very sad and I would hate the EF4-POCO-MVC triumph :(. Also that would mean that EF can't do this in the MVC environment whichever EF4 object types are used :(. I think the snapshot based change tracking should find out that the changed BlogPost has relationships to Tags with existing PKs.
Btw: I think the same problem happens with one-to-many relations (google and my colleague say so). I will give it a try at home, but even if that works that doesn't help me in my six many-to-many relationships in my app :(.
Let's try it this way:
Attach BlogPost to context. After attaching object to context the state of the object, all related objects and all relations is set to Unchanged.
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState to set your BlogPost to Modified
Iterate through Tag collection
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeRelationshipState to set state for relation between current Tag and BlogPost.
SaveChanges
Edit:
I guess one of my comments gave you false hope that EF will do the merge for you. I played a lot with this problem and my conclusion says EF will not do this for you. I think you have also found my question on MSDN. In reality there is plenty of such questions on the Internet. The problem is that it is not clearly stated how to deal with this scenario. So lets have a look on the problem:
Problem background
EF needs to track changes on entities so that persistance knows which records have to be updated, inserted or deleted. The problem is that it is ObjectContext responsibility to track changes. ObjectContext is able to track changes only for attached entities. Entities which are created outside the ObjectContext are not tracked at all.
Problem description
Based on above description we can clearly state that EF is more suitable for connected scenarios where entity is always attached to context - typical for WinForm application. Web applications requires disconnected scenario where context is closed after request processing and entity content is passed as HTTP response to the client. Next HTTP request provides modified content of the entity which has to be recreated, attached to new context and persisted. Recreation usually happends outside of the context scope (layered architecture with persistance ignorace).
Solution
So how to deal with such disconnected scenario? When using POCO classes we have 3 ways to deal with change tracking:
Snapshot - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Dynamic tracking proxies - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Manual synchronization.
Manual synchronization on single entity is easy task. You just need to attach entity and call AddObject for inserting, DeleteObject for deleting or set state in ObjectStateManager to Modified for updating. The real pain comes when you have to deal with object graph instead of single entity. This pain is even worse when you have to deal with independent associations (those that don't use Foreign Key property) and many to many relations. In that case you have to manually synchronize each entity in object graph but also each relation in object graph.
Manual synchronization is proposed as solution by MSDN documentation: Attaching and Detaching objects says:
Objects are attached to the object
context in an Unchanged state. If you
need to change the state of an object
or the relationship because you know
that your object was modified in
detached state, use one of the
following methods.
Mentioned methods are ChangeObjectState and ChangeRelationshipState of ObjectStateManager = manual change tracking. Similar proposal is in other MSDN documentation article: Defining and Managing Relationships says:
If you are working with disconnected
objects you must manually manage the
synchronization.
Moreover there is blog post related to EF v1 which criticise exactly this behavior of EF.
Reason for solution
EF has many "helpful" operations and settings like Refresh, Load, ApplyCurrentValues, ApplyOriginalValues, MergeOption etc. But by my investigation all these features work only for single entity and affects only scalar preperties (= not navigation properties and relations). I rather not test this methods with complex types nested in entity.
Other proposed solution
Instead of real Merge functionality EF team provides something called Self Tracking Entities (STE) which don't solve the problem. First of all STE works only if same instance is used for whole processing. In web application it is not the case unless you store instance in view state or session. Due to that I'm very unhappy from using EF and I'm going to check features of NHibernate. First observation says that NHibernate perhaps has such functionality.
Conclusion
I will end up this assumptions with single link to another related question on MSDN forum. Check Zeeshan Hirani's answer. He is author of Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes. If he says that automatic merge of object graphs is not supported, I believe him.
But still there is possibility that I'm completely wrong and some automatic merge functionality exists in EF.
Edit 2:
As you can see this was already added to MS Connect as suggestion in 2007. MS has closed it as something to be done in next version but actually nothing had been done to improve this gap except STE.
I have a solution to the problem that was described above by Ladislav. I have created an extension method for the DbContext which will automatically perform the add/update/delete's based on a diff of the provided graph and persisted graph.
At present using the Entity Framework you will need to perform the updates of the contacts manually, check if each contact is new and add, check if updated and edit, check if removed then delete it from the database. Once you have to do this for a few different aggregates in a large system you start to realize there must be a better, more generic way.
Please take a look and see if it can help http://refactorthis.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/introducing-graphdiff-for-entity-framework-code-first-allowing-automated-updates-of-a-graph-of-detached-entities/
You can go straight to the code here https://github.com/refactorthis/GraphDiff
I know it's late for the OP but since this is a very common issue I posted this in case it serves someone else.
I've been toying around with this issue and I think I got a fairly simple solution,
what I do is:
Save main object (Blogs for example) by setting its state to Modified.
Query the database for the updated object including the collections I need to update.
Query and convert .ToList() the entities I want my collection to include.
Update the main object's collection(s) to the List I got from step 3.
SaveChanges();
In the following example "dataobj" and "_categories" are the parameters received by my controller "dataobj" is my main object, and "_categories" is an IEnumerable containing the IDs of the categories the user selected in the view.
db.Entry(dataobj).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
dataobj = db.ServiceTypes.Include(x => x.Categories).Single(x => x.Id == dataobj.Id);
var it = _categories != null ? db.Categories.Where(x => _categories.Contains(x.Id)).ToList() : null;
dataobj.Categories = it;
db.SaveChanges();
It even works for multiple relations
The Entity Framework team is aware that this is a usability issue and plans to address it post-EF6.
From the Entity Framework team:
This is a usability issue that we are aware of and is something we have been thinking about and plan to do more work on post-EF6. I have created this work item to track the issue: http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864 The work item also contains a link to the user voice item for this--I encourage you to vote for it if you have not done so already.
If this impacts you, vote for the feature at
http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864
All of the answers were great to explain the problem, but none of them really solved the problem for me.
I found that if I didn't use the relationship in the parent entity but just added and removed the child entities everything worked just fine.
Sorry for the VB but that is what the project I am working in is written in.
The parent entity "Report" has a one to many relationship to "ReportRole" and has the property "ReportRoles". The new roles are passed in by a comma separated string from an Ajax call.
The first line will remove all the child entities, and if I used "report.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" instead of the "db.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" I would get the error.
report.ReportRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Remove(f))
Dim newRoles = If(String.IsNullOrEmpty(model.RolesString), New String() {}, model.RolesString.Split(","))
newRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Add(New ReportRole With {.ReportId = report.Id, .AspNetRoleId = f}))
If you have scenario of a User that has many Roles and Roles that have many users. Using MVC is there an easy way to bind to the model directly? If your user class has a list of roles and the roles class has a list of users.
Thank you.
Model binding in MVC is fairly strong. You have to remember that naming conventions are important, especially when you start attempting to bind collections. To bind to a collection, you have to name your form field something to the effect of name="Model.Roles[]" (where Model is User; that would be dependent on your view being strongly typed to your User object; change accordingly). The brackets denote a collection of information being sent back up to the server. If you want to target a specific point in the collection, perhaps targeting a specific property on that point, you might have something like name="Model.Roles[x].Id where x is a valid index in the collection. It takes some effort to ensure you have these correct, and my approach almost always degrades into sending a custom collection of information back to the server and manually creating the relationships in the action method prior to saving the entity in question.
Phil Haack has a post about binding to a collection, albeit from 2008. It's still relevant, however, and might give you more insight into the model binding behavior.