I'm working on my first ASP.NET MVC (beta for version 3) application (using EF4) and I'm struggling a bit with some of the conventions around saving a new record and updating an existing one. I am using the standard route mapping.
When the user goes to the page /session/Evaluate they can enter a new record and save it. I have an action defined like this:
[ActionName("Evaluate")]
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult EvaluateSave(EvaluteSessionViewModel evaluatedSession)
{
}
When they save I grab an entity off the view model and attach it to my context and save. So far, so good. Now I want the user to be able to edit this record via the url /session/Evaluate/1 where '1' is the record ID.
Edit: I have my EF entity attached as a property to the View Model.
If I add an overloaded method, like this (so I can retrieve the '1' portion automatically).
[ActionName("Evaluate")]
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult EvaluateSave(ID, EvaluteSessionViewModel evaluatedSession)
{
}
I get an "The current request for action 'Evaluate' on controller type 'SessionsController' is ambiguous between the following action" error. I'm not sure why they're ambiguous since they look unique to me.
I decided that I was just going to skip over this issue for now and see if I could get it to update an existing record, so I commented out the EvaluateSave that didn't have the ID parameter.
What I'd like to do is this:
// Load the original entity from EF
// Rebind the postback so that the values posted update the entity
// Save the result
Since the entity is populated as the parameter (evaluatedSession) the rebinding is happening too soon. But as I look at the approach I'd like to take I realized that it opens my code up to hacking (since a user could add in fields into the posted back page and these could override the values I set in the entity).
So it seems I'm left with having to manually check each field to see if it has changed and if it has, update it. Something like this:
if (evaluatedSession.MyEntity.myField <> savedSession.myField)
savedSession.myField = evaluatedSession.MyEntity.myField;
Or, save a copy of the entity and make sure none of the non-user editable ones have changed. Yuck.
So two questions:
First: how do I disambiguate the overloaded methods?
Second: is there a better way of handling updating a previously saved record?
Edit: I guess I could use something like Automapper...
Edit 9/22/2010 - OK, it looks like this is supposed to work with a combination of two items: you can control what fields bind (and specifically exclude some of them) via the [Bind(Exclude="field1,field2")] attribute either on the class level or as part of the method doing the saving, ex.
public ActionResult EvaluateSave([Bind(Exclude="field1")] EvaluateSessionViewModel evaluatedSession)
From the EF side of things you are supposed to be able to use the ApplyCurrentValues() method from the context, ex.
context.ApplyCurrentValues(savedEval.EntityKey.EntitySetName, evaluatedSession);
Of course, that doesn't appear to work for me. I keep getting "An object with a key that matches the key of the supplied object could not be found in the ObjectStateManager. Verify that the key values of the supplied object match the key values of the object to which changes must be applied.".
I tried attaching the original entity that I had just loaded, just in case it wasn't attached to the context for some reason (before ApplyCurrentValues):
context.AttachTo(savedEval.EntityKey.EntitySetName, savedEval);
It still fails. I'm guessing it has something to do with the type of EF entity object MVC creates (perhaps it's not filled in enough for EF4 to do anything with it?). I had hoped to enable .NET framework stepping to walk through it to see what it was attempting to do, but it appears EF4 isn't part of the deal. I looked at it with Reflector but it's a little hard for me to visualize what is happening.
Well, the way it works is you can only have one method name per httpverb. So the easiest way is to create a new action name. Something like "Create" for new records and "Edit" for existing records.
You can use the AntiForgeryToken ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd492767.aspx ) to validate the data. It doesn't stop all attempts at hacking but it's an added benefit.
Additional
The reason you can only have one action name per httpverb is because the model binders only attempt to model bind and really aren't type specific. If you had two methods with the same action name and two different types of parameters it can't just try and find the best match because your intent might be clearly one thing while the program only sees some sort of best match. For instance, your might have a parameter Id and a model that contains a property Id and it might not know which one you intend to use.
Related
Is it possible to safely programmatically get a list of fields that are in the View that has just posted back to a Controller?
I noticed a problem with the default implementation of the scaffolding, in
DB.Entry(model).State = EntityState.Modified
DB.SaveChanges()
The problem is that if I haven't included a field to be edited in the view, it is being overwritten by the default value of the field that .NET assigns when creating the object. eg. If I have a User class with ID, Email and PasswordHash and I want to allow the user to update their Email address only, if I don't include anything for the PasswordHash field, it is reset to NULL as it is passed into the controller as NULL. At the moment, I am working around it by retrieving the current object from the database and updating only the fields which I know are in the View from the model passed in. That isn't such a problem for a small table, but I would like to have a general solution that I can apply across the board, especially for large tables which may during development and I don't want to have to update the code every time.
I know that I could loop through the POST variables and examine them to see what has been posted, but that creates a security issue as the user could inject additional fields that I don't want them to edit. I suppose I could explicitly exclude ones that I don't want them to edit, but then again, I would rather not have to list those if I can avoid it as it is an extra thing to maintain.
I think that there are 2 problems here and I'm not sure either are solvable...
Getting the View that posted back
Establishing which fields are included in that View (I might need to construct it again temporarily to do that?)
I suppose that I can probably get away with ignoring the first one as I could just only ever use that method on the Controller for a single View. That is still a little less neat than I'd like, but it does reduce the issue to just establishing which fields are in the View.
If a view needs only certain properties, create an interface with only those properties. Use this interface in the HttpGet and HttpPost methods.
And then you can use something like AutoMapper to map the viewmodel to your entity.
Im trying to perform update of some records.
When im calling a create action after i insert the record i take out some of the records and change a non-primary key value. Then i call UpdateModel on each to try to save them.
But i get error: The model of type "" was not successfully updated.
If i check ModelState i see that the id value (wich is PK and IDENTITY fails -> A value is required.). The value at id isnt there.
What am i doing wrong?
Hard to guess what the reason might be, but if you trigger the whole thing from a form, I would do "view source" of the html form and make sure your id is there (in a hidden field?). Maybe you forgot to set the id property in your viewmodel before passing it to the view?
That's my best guess without seeing some sample code :)
I have a Client entity and PostCode entity in Linq to SQL model. The Clients table in database contains client_postcode column which is a FK column to postalcode column in PostCode table, which is a varchar column primary key for PostCode table.
When updating Client, in my code I do this
// postcode
updating.PostCode = (from p in ctx.PostCodes
where p.postalcode.Equals(client.PostCode.postalcode)
select p).First();
where client object is provided from ASP.NET MVC View form. This code seems to set the PostCode related entity fine. But when calling SubmitChanges() I receive the following exception:
Value of member 'postalcode' of an object of type 'PostCode' changed. A member defining the identity of the object cannot be changed. Consider adding a new object with new identity and deleting the existing one instead.
So I am currently unable to change the related entity. How is that done in Linq to Sql?
UPDATE:
After further review and troubleshooting I found out that the problem is in ASP.NET MVC UpdateModel() call. If I call UpdateModel() to update the existing entity with the edited data, something is wrong with the FK assignement for PostCode. If I don't call UpdateModel and do it by hand, it works.
Any ideas what goes wrong in UpdateModel() that it can't set the relationship to foreign key entities correctly?
I am updating this question and starting a bounty. The question is simplified. How to successfully use L2S and UpdateModel() to work when updating items (with related entities as FK) in ASP.NET MVC Edit views?
It seems to me that you are receiving PostCode.postalcode in the http post request.
Based on how model binding works, the UpdateModel call updates .PostCode.postalcode of the model you are passing to it.
Use this overload to include or exclude specific properties.
Wouldn't updating.client_postcode = client.client_postcode; accomplish what you want?
Client.PostCode should be looked up on seek based on client_postocde.
You can not do what you are trying, you cannot change the Postcode like that.
James' idea is in the right direction.
Updatemodel() takes the matching values from the Formcollection
How do these values come in the Formcollection? What are their keys?
basically there are 2 ways in editing an object.
option 1:
all the value names you want to update have corresponding keys in the Formcollection, which leaves you just to call UpdateModel() of the original object. do SubmitChanges()
option 2:
Get the original object, change it's values manually (because the keys dont correspond) and do SubmitChanges()
you are tying to change a link, you cant do that. you can only edit the updating.client_postcode which in this case is a string?
Can you please copy the whole action here? So I can write some code for you without gambling.
I'm using Entity Framework with an AS.NET MVC application. I need to allow the user to create new records and modify existing ones. I am able to fetch existing records no problem, but when I pass back in the edited entity and try to save it it creates a new one and saves it and leaves the original unmodified.
I am getting the object from EF using the primary key (e.g. ID number for an employee record). I successfully retrieve it, and set the MergeOption like so:
Context.Sector.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking;
I am able to trace that the object has the correct data (using the key of the original record) all the way down to the point where I call:
Context.SaveChanges();
However, after that, the new record is created instead of modifying the existing one.
Is there something obvious I am missing here? I would have thought that retrieving the object and changing some of its values (not the ID) and saving it would just work, but obviously not.
Thanks,
Chris
"NoTracking means that the ObjectStateManager is bypassed and therefore every access to the Entity Objects results in a fetch from the database and the creation of new objects."
-- http://blog.dynatrace.com/2009/03/11/adonet-entity-framework-unexpected-behaviour-with-mergeoptions/
I don't think NoTracking is what you want.
From your comment: "distributed across various tiers and some proprietary libraries"
Are you new()ing up a ObjectContext, closing it or losing the reference to it, and then trying to save your object to a new() or different ObjectContext?
If so your losing all of your change tracking information. If this is the case then you want to call the Attach() method to reattach the entity to the context, ApplyPropertyChanges() and then finally SaveChanges().
Julie Lerman has a pretty good blog post that outlines all the different change tracking options and techniques that are available. You should also check out this MSDN article on the same subject.
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.