I'm working on creating an Entity Framework model for our database tables, and for the most part, things are going pretty well. However, I'm running into a bit of an issue mapping the stored procedures. See, the homebuilt ORM that our company has been using tends to use one sproc for inserting and updating, and differentiats the operations by passing a bit valued parameter called #IsInsert (I know, don't get me started). Entity Framework seems to expect separate sprocs for inserting and updating, so I figure that all I have to do is tell EF "pass true for this parameter when you're using it as an insert, false if it's an update". However, at least according to the designer UI, it doesn't seem to give me the option for any mapping other than fields on the entity object. Is there a way to pass a constant value (boolean true or false) to a sproc mapping in EF4?
Your best bet may be to use context.executestorequery(query) and keep it how it was before.
Related
I can't find any info about this in the documentation, so I will ask here. How does breeze handle database column defaults? I have required columns in my database, but there are also default static values supplied for these in the database column definitions. Normally, I can insert null into these columns, and the new records will get the default. However, breeze doesn't seem to be aware of database column defaults, and the entities that have null in these columns fail validation on saving.
Thanks,
Mathias
Try editing the edmx xml by adding StoreGeneratedPattern = "Computed" attribute to the column with default value in the DB.
Edit:
Actually, before doing editing the xml, try setting the StoreGeneratedPattern property to Computed in the model editor itself.
Update:
This was fixed in Breeze 1.4.6 ( or later), available now.
Original Post:
There is currently in a bug in Breeze that should be fixed in the next release, out in about week. When this fix gets in then breeze will honor any defaultValues it finds in the EntityFramework data model.
One problem though is while it is easy to get 'defaultValues' into a Model First Entity Framework model via the properties editor, it's actually difficult to get it into a Code First EF model, unless you use fluent configuration. Unfortunately, EF ignores the [DefaultValue] attribute when constructing Code First model metadata.
One workaround that you can use now is to poke the 'defaultValue' directly onto any dataProperty. Something like:
var customerType = myEntityManager.metadataStore.getEntityType("Customer");
var fooProperty = customerType.getProperty("foo");
fooProperty.defaultValue = 123;
I was looking for a good way to organize validation rules within BeforeSaveEntity method and I have found this comment in the file: TodoContextProvider.cs within the project: BreezeMvcSPATemplate:
// A second DbContext for db access during custom save validation.
// "this.Context" is reserved for Breeze save only!
Why this.Context can not be used?
Excellent question. The answer isn't obvious and it's not easy to cover briefly. I will try.
The EFContextProvider takes the save data from the client and (ultimately) turns these data into entities within the EFContextProvider.Context. When the save is approved, the EFContextProvider calls the SaveChanges method on this EF Context and all of its contents are saved as a single transaction.
There are two potential problems.
1. Data integrity and security
Client data can never be fully trusted. If you have business rules that limit what an authorized user can see or change, you must compare the client-derived entity to the corresponding entity from the database.
An EF Context cannot contain two copies of the "same entity". It can't hold two entities with the same key. So you can't use the EFContextProvider.Context both to fetch the clean copy from the database and to hold the copy with changes.
You'll need a second Context to get the clean copy and you'll have to write logic to compare the critical values of the entity-to-save in the EFContextProvider.Context with the values of the clean entity in the second Context.
2. Cross-entity validation
Many validation do not require comparison of values with a clean entity.
For example, the out-of-the-box System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations attributes, such as Required and MaxLength are simple data validations to determine if an entity is self-consistent. Either there is a value or there is not. The value is less than the maximum length or it is not. You don't need a comparison entity for such tests.
You could write your own custom System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations attributes that compare data values within a single entity. You might have a rule that says that order.InvoiceDate must be on-or-before order.ShipDate. that is also a self-consistency test and you won't need a comparison entity for that one either.
If these are the only kinds of validation you care about - and you're using an EF DbContext - you can let EF run them for you during its save processing. You won't need a second Context.
But cross entity validations are another story. In a cross-entity validation, entity 'A' is valid only when some condition is true for entity 'B' (and perhaps 'C', 'D', 'E', ...). For example, you may require that an order item have a parent order that is already in the database.
There is an excellent chance that the parent order is not in the EFContextProvider.Context at the time you are validating the order item.
"No problem," you say. "I'll just navigate to the parent with someItem.Order."
No you cannot. First, it won't work because lazy loading is disabled for the EFContextProvider.Context. The EFContextProvider disables lazy loading mostly to break circular references during serialization but also to prevent performance killing "n+1" bugs on the server.
You can get around that by loading any entity or related entities at will. But then you hit the second problem: the entity you load for validation could conflict with another entity that you are trying to save in this batch.
The EFContextProvider doesn't populate its Context all at once. It starts validating the entities one-by-one, adding them to the Context as it goes.
Continuing our example, suppose we had loaded the parent order for someItem during validation. That order is now in EFContextProvider.Context.
The save process continues to the next entity and ... surprise, surprise ... the next entity happens to be the very same parent order. The EFContextProvider tries to attach this copy to the Context which already has a copy (the one we just loaded) ... it can't.
There's a conflict. Which of the two orders belongs in the EFContextProvider? The clean copy we just loaded for validation purposes ... or the one that came from the client with modifications to be saved?
Maybe you think you know the answer. Maybe I agree. But the fact is, the EFContextProvider throws an exception because there is already an order with that key in the Context.
Conclusion
If all your validations are self-consistency checks, the EFContextProvider.Context is all you need. You won't have to create a second Context
But if you have data security concerns and/or business logic that involves other entities, you need a second Context ... and you'll need sufficient EF skills to use that Context.
This is not a limitation of Breeze or the Entity Framework. Non-trivial business logic demands comparable server-side complexity no matter what technology you choose. That's the nature of the beast.
I have an entity/table that uses sqlgeography.
Since EF 4.X doesn't support spatial types I'm instead sending the bytes of the field back and forth.
I have stored procs on the database side that handles the converstion and properties on the code side to do that job.
To add the properties in the code I used a partial class.
One of those properties is for the SqlGeography which simply wraps around the byte[] property to handle getting and setting.
This property is hidden from EF using the NotMappedAttribute.
The other is the property exposing the byte[] itself and is decorated with the EdmScalarPropertyAttribute and DataMemberAttribute.
I then go to the EF model designer (*.edmx) to point the entity model at the Insert/Update/Delete stored procs.
It finds the stored procs alright and realises that they (when appropriate) take a VARBINARY parameter.
It also has a drop down allowing you to select a property on the entity class which maps to that parameter.
However this drop down doesn't list either of my properties. I don't care about the SqlGeography property since that is meant to be hidden from EF, however it is vital for me to be able to point it at the byte[] property, as that is where the data comes from.
I would very much like to avoid database triggers or wrapper classes and addiitonal fields to fudge this in to working.
I tried manually editing the .edmx file to include the byte[] property, but then it just complains it's unmapped.
Can anyone give me some insight in to how to get this to work? Or an alternative method of achiving the end result?
We could use a view to create the binary field for us, but this then involves manually creating a lot of the xml for the relationships within the data.
This pretty much voids the point of using EF which is to make life simple and easy.
For this project We'll just add a binary field to the table then have sprocs to handle the converstion on the server and a property in a partial entity class for exposing the geography type in the model.
Next project I doubt we'll be using EF. Dapper is so much more painless, even if theres a touch more code writing involved.
Here's the links for using views if anyone thinks it would be applicable to them:
http://thedatafarm.com/blog/data-access/yes-you-can-read-and-probably-write-spatial-data-with-entity-framework/
http://smehrozalam.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/entity-framework-creating-a-model-using-views-instead-of-tables/
In the end we created a computed column for each table that exposes the spatial data as bytes.
We then use stored procs for inserting and updating the spatial data.
I like using LINQ to SQL. The only problem is that I don't like the default way of updating tables.
Let's say I have the following table with the following columns:
ID (primary key), value1, value2, value3, value4, value5
When I need to update something I call
UPDATE ... WHERE ID=#id
LINQ to SQL calls
UPDATE ... WHERE ID=#id and value1=#value1 and value2=#value2 and value3=#value3 and value4=#value4 and value5=#value5
I can override this behavior by adding
UpdateCheck=UpdateCheck.Never
to every column, but with every update of the DataContext class with the GUI, this will be erased. Is there any way to tell LINQ to use this way of updating data?
I'm confused by this statement:
but with every update of the DataContext class with the GUI, this will be erased. Is there any way to tell LINQ to use this way of updating data?
By "the GUI", do you mean the Linq to SQL designer? Because the property sheet for each member has an "Update Check" property that you can set to "Never". If you are manually editing the .designer.cs file, don't do that, instead change the Update Check setting in the actual designer.
Designer Screen http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7912/updatecheckdesigner.png
Please note: The "default way" of updating used by Linq to SQL is called optimistic concurrency, and is a way of preventing conflicting updates from multiple users. If you turn this off by using the method above, you have to be prepared to deal with the fact that if two users have the same record open at the same time, the second user's changes will overwrite the first user's changes without any warning or confirmation. Be sure that this is the behaviour you really want.
Unfortunately, no, there's not. You have to edit the DBML manually after it is generated (or updated) - which is a pain (or use the Designer as already mentioned in the other answer).
When I last used L2S on a project, I wrote a quick utility which ran post-generation and fixed it up, but it's an unnecessary pain which (c)shouldn't be required IMHO.
Ran into this one myself. The trick is to change the way one generates the DBML--such as using l2st4. Then you can set that pesky UpdateCheck property to always be never by modifying the template.
That is how Linq works. Why don't you like this update behavior?
Read about optimistic concurrency
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb399373.aspx
This is a little out there but I have a customer object coming back to my controller. I want to just reconnect this object back to the database, is it even possible? I know there is a datacontext.customers.insertonsubmit(customer), but is there the equivalent datacontext.customers.updateonsubmit(customer)???
This is what I don't like about LINQ-to-SQL.
It generally works fine if you're querying and updating in the same scope, but if you get an object, cache it, and then try to update it later, you can't.
Here's what the documentation says:
Use the Attach methods with entities that have been created in one DataContext, and serialized to a client, and then deserialized back with the intention to perform an update or delete operation. Because the new DataContext has no way of tracking what the original values were for a disconnected entity, the client is responsible for supplying those values. In this version of Attach, the entity is assumed to be in its original value state. After calling this method, you can then update its fields, for example with additional data sent from the client.
Do not try to Attach an entity that has not been detached through serialization. Entities that have not been serialized still maintain associations with deferred loaders that can cause unexpected results if the entity becomes tracked by a second data context.
A little ambiguous IMHO, specifically about exactly what it means by "serialized" and "deserialized".
Also, interestingly enough, here's what it says about the DataContext object:
In general, a DataContext instance is
designed to last for one "unit of
work" however your application defines
that term. A DataContext is
lightweight and is not expensive to
create. A typical LINQ to SQL
application creates DataContext
instances at method scope or as a
member of short-lived classes that
represent a logical set of related
database operations.
So, DataContexts are intended to be tightly scoped - and yet to use Attach(), you have to use the same DataContext that queried the object. I'm assuming/hoping we're all completely misunderstanding what Attach() is really intended to be used for.
What I've had to do in situations like this is re-query the object I needed to update to get a fresh copy, and then do the update.
The customer that you post from the form will not have entity keys so may not attach well, also you may not have every field of the customer available on the form so all of it's fields may not be set.
I would recommend using the TryUpdateModel method, in your action you'll have to get the customer from the database again and update it with the form's post variables.
public ActionResult MySaveAction(int id, FormCollection form)
{
Customer updateCustomer = _Repository.GetCustomer(id);
TryUpdateModel(updateCustomer, "Customer", form);
_Repository.Save(updateCustomer);
}
You will have to add in all your own exception handling and validation of course, but that's the general idea.
You want to use the attach method on the customers table on the data context.
datacontext.customers.Attach(customer);
to reconnect it to the data context. Then you can use SubmitChanges() to update the values in the database.
EDIT: This only works with entities that have been detached from the original data context through serialization. If you don't mind the extra call to the database, you can use the idiomatic method in ASP.NET MVC of retrieving the object again and applying your changes via UpdateModel or TryUpdateModel as #Odd suggests.