I have the following question:
It is easy to insert an oBject in database with a form.
Just create an object
link it to the fields in your from.
Post back to controller,
create a new datacontext and do datacontext.InsertOnSubmit(object)
.
public static void AddPage(string lang, Page page)
{
using (var db = new CardReaderDataContext())
{
page.Lang = lang;
page.URL = UrlHelper.CreateValidSeoUrl(page.Name, "-");
db.Pages.InsertOnSubmit(page);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
But if you want to update an object, it is a tedious job.
You do the same flow,
you get the object,
link it to your form,
post it, but THEN !!!
because it went outside your datacontext, you have to reload the object from the datacontext,
transfer all the variables and save it,
this is a little complex explained so I give an example:
To update an object that you modified in a form:
public static void Update(Page page)
{
using (var db = new CardReaderDataContext())
{
var _page = db.Pages.Where(p => p.Guid == page.Guid).Single();
_page.ModificationDate = DateTime.Now;
_page.Title = page.Title;
_page.Description = page.Description;
_page.Content = page.Content;
_page.Keywords = page.Keywords;
_page.Name = page.Name;
_page.WTLang = page.WTLang;
_page.WTSKU = page.WTSKU;
_page.WTTi = page.WTTi;
_page.WTUri = page.WTUri;
_page.URL = UrlHelper.CreateValidSeoUrl(page.Name, "-");
// _page.Order = GetMaxOrderByMenuGuid(page.MenuGuid);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
I don't know if it is clear, if it isn't comment me, I will edit
I think you're looking for DataContext.Attach, but you can only use that with linqtosql objects that have been serialised/deserialised.
Have a read of the answer to this question -
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/linqprojectgeneral/thread/384a1c03-3acf-43ef-9a25-b84f93025e63/
"It's also not a good idea to even
attempt to fetch the old version. By
doing that you are in effect turning
off optimistic concurrency, so unless
you intended that this is a bad
approach. What you need to do is
round trip both the original state and
the current state of the object."
Related
I think these are essentially the same method, but the first one queries the db first, so has less performance due to hitting the db twice. I will only have 40 users at most so performance isn't too big an issue. Is there any other reason to use one over the other?
Grab the entity from the db first, change it then save it:
public void UpdateStudent(StudentModel model)
{
using (var _db = new AppEntities())
{
Student student = new Student();
student = _db.Student.Find(model.studentId);
student.FirstName = model.FirstName;
student.LastName = model.LastName;
student.DOB = model.DOB;
student.GradeId = model.GradeId;
_db.Entry(student).State = System.Data.Entity.EntityState.Modified;
_db.SaveChanges();
}
}
Change the entity and let EF find it in the DB and update:
public void UpdateStudent(StudentModel model)
{
using (var _db = new AppEntities())
{
Student student = new Student()
{
student.StudentId = model.StudentId,
student.FirstName = model.FirstName,
student.LastName = model.LastName,
student.DOB = model.DOB,
student.GradeId = model.GradeId
};
_db.Entry(student).State = System.Data.Entity.EntityState.Modified;
_db.SaveChanges();
}
}
In first code snippet you take some version of entity form db. If other thread or proccess modifies the same entity I don't think EF would let you just do an update as your base version of entity differs from that one in db right before an update query.
In the second one if some thread or process modifies this entity while you're processing this request you probably could lose that change.
EDIT: I never tired that. I'm always getting the entity and then modify and save but you could write a test to verify what happens.
In your first snippet, you don't have to mark the entity as Modified, because the change tracker takes care of that. This is important to note because it also defines the difference between the two methods. I'll explain.
Let's assume that of all assignments (student.FirstName = model.FirstName; etc.) only the first one is a real change. If so -
The first code fragment (but without marking the entity as Modified) triggers an update statement that only updates FirstName.
The second code fragment always updates all fields in Student.
This means that the first fragment is less likely to cause concurrency conflicts (someone else may change LastName in the mean time and you don't overwrite this modification by stale data, as happens in the second scenario).
So it's about fine-grained changes vs. a sweeping update, roundtrips vs. redundancy:
the first scenario takes roundtrips but is more concurrency-safe.
the second scenario takes no roundtrips but is less concurrency-safe.
It's up to you to balance the trade-offs.
To make this choice a little bit harder, there is a third option:
public void UpdateStudent(StudentModel model)
{
using (var _db = new AppEntities())
{
Student student = new Student()
{
student.StudentId = model.StudentId,
student.FirstName = model.FirstName,
student.LastName = model.LastName,
student.DOB = model.DOB,
student.GradeId = model.GradeId
};
_db.Students.Attach(student);
_db.Entry(student).Property(s => s.FirstName).IsModified = true;
_db.Entry(student).Property(s => s.LastName).IsModified = true;
_db.Entry(student).Property(s => s.DOB).IsModified = true;
_db.Entry(student).Property(s => s.GradeId).IsModified = true;
_db.SaveChanges();
}
}
No roundtrip and now you only mark 4 properties as modified. So you still update too many properties if only one was actually changed, but four is better than all.
And there's more to this "rondtrips vs redundancy" question, but I explained that elswhere.
I am making an MVC4 web application using Entity Framework 5 (Database-first with generated POCOs) for data access.
In the app, the user goes through several screens, creating or editing a document (called a 'case study'). When they arrive at the final screen, their document exists as a CaseStudy POCO in memory, and everything is great until it is time to save this structure to the database.
To store the document, I have defined several database tables, which in turn map to EF POCOs used by the business layer, which is then consumed by the MVC controllers. As such, short-lived DbContexts are used to retrieve POCOs and store them in session between requests.
As a result, the save screen must save the contents of this POCO that has navigational properties to existing table data (Category, Layout, and Sections tables), and also added or updated data (CaseStudySections and the CaseStudy itself). So all of the POCOs are either new, or the context used to retrieve them has long been disposed. In other words, they are all 'detached'.
What is unusual about this post is that I already have a working solution in hand. The problem is that it is bulky, brittle, and inelegant. I am posting the code below. Note the iteration through sub-collections, the explicit adds and attaches, having to get an entry object and mark individual properties as modified just so they will be updated, and the awful song and dance at the end to get the AdditionalMaterials collection synced up. If this is what is required to deal with detached POCOs in EF5 I will be disappointed.
Am I missing something here? Is this consistent with best practices? Is there a more graceful and/or concise way to attach a structure of POCOs and insert/update?
The code to save a case study:
public void SaveCaseStudy(CaseStudy caseStudy)
{
foreach (var s in caseStudy.CaseStudySections)
{
this.Entities.Sections.Attach(s.Section);
if (s.CreatedByRefId == default(Guid))
{
s.CreatedByRefId = this.UserRefId;
s.CreatedTime = DateTime.Now;
this.Entities.CaseStudySections.Add(s);
}
else
{
this.Entities.CaseStudySections.Attach(s);
var entry = this.Entities.Entry(s);
entry.Property(e => e.TextData).IsModified = true;
entry.Property(e => e.BinaryData).IsModified = true;
}
s.LastModifiedByRefId = this.UserRefId;
s.LastModifiedTime = DateTime.Now;
}
foreach (var m in caseStudy.AdditionalMaterials)
{
if (m.CreatedByRefId == default(Guid))
{
m.CreatedByRefId = this.UserRefId;
m.CreatedTime = DateTime.Now;
this.Entities.AdditionalMaterials.Add(m);
}
else
{
this.Entities.AdditionalMaterials.Attach(m);
}
m.LastModifiedByRefId = this.UserRefId;
m.LastModifiedByTime = DateTime.Now;
}
this.Entities.Layouts.Attach(caseStudy.Layout);
this.Entities.Categories.Attach(caseStudy.Category);
if (caseStudy.CreatedByRefId != default(Guid))
{
this.Entities.CaseStudies.Attach(caseStudy);
var entry = this.Entities.Entry(caseStudy);
entry.Property(e => e.CaseStudyName).IsModified = true;
entry.Property(e => e.CaseStudyTitle).IsModified = true;
}
else
{
this.Entities.CaseStudies.Add(caseStudy);
caseStudy.CreatedByRefId = this.UserRefId;
caseStudy.CreatedTime = DateTime.Now;
}
caseStudy.LastModifiedByRefId = this.UserRefId;
caseStudy.LastModifiedTime = DateTime.Now;
if (caseStudy.CaseStudyStatus != (int)CaseStudyStatus.Personalized)
{
caseStudy.CaseStudyStatus = (int)CaseStudyStatus.PendingApproval;
}
caseStudy.ApprovedByRefId = null;
caseStudy.ApprovedTime = null;
this.Entities.SaveChanges();
var existingAdditionalMaterialRefIds = caseStudy.AdditionalMaterials
.Select(m => m.AdditionalMaterialRefId)
.ToArray();
var additionalMaterialsToRemove = this.Entities.AdditionalMaterials
.Where(m =>
m.CaseStudyRefId == caseStudy.CaseStudyRefId &&
!existingAdditionalMaterialRefIds.Contains(m.AdditionalMaterialRefId))
.ToArray();
foreach (var additionalMaterialToRemove in additionalMaterialsToRemove)
{
this.Entities.AdditionalMaterials.Remove(additionalMaterialToRemove);
}
this.Entities.SaveChanges();
}
In general it is what you have to do. You must tell EF about each change you want to perform when attaching detached object graph. I don't say that your code cannot be simplified but you will still have to deal with every entity and setting its state if you want it to be added or modified.
Here is little bit older but still valid answer about the topic - in short nothing has changes since I wrote it, only new DbContext API was created which still sits on top of the old API. The best description of this topic I have seen so far is in book Programming Entity Framework: DbContext.
How about just doing:
db.CaseStudies.Attach(caseStudy);
db.Entry(caseStudy).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChange();
That will save all changes in your model to the db.
I am having trouble saving my entities after updating them. I can add new entities like this: add(student); but if I tried this:
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(student).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("someView");
}
I get this error message:
System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DbUpdateConcurrencyException was unhandled by user code
Message=Store update, insert, or delete statement affected an unexpected number of rows (0). Entities may have been modified or
deleted since entities were loaded. Refresh ObjectStateManager
entries.
Here’s my controller method:
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult ClassAttendance(InstructorIndexData viewModel, FormCollection frmcol)
{
var instructorData = new InstructorIndexData();
string[] AllFstMNames = frmcol["item.Student.FirstMidName"].Split(',');
string[] AllLstNames = frmcol["item.Student.LastName"].Split(',');
string[] AllAddresses = frmcol["item.Student.Address"].Split(',');
string[] AllEnrollmentDates = frmcol["item.Student.EnrollmentDate"].Split(',');
//more of the same code…
var student = new Student();
var enrollment = new Enrollment();
for ( int i = 0; i < AllFstMNames.Count(); i++)
{
student.FirstMidName = AllFstMNames[i];
student.LastName = AllLstNames[i];
student.Address = AllAddresses[i];
student.EnrollmentDate = Convert.ToDateTime(AllEnrollmentDates[i]);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(frmcol["item.Grade"]))
{
enrollment.Grade = Convert.ToInt32(AllGrades[i]);
}
enrollment.StudentID = Convert.ToInt32(AllStudentIds[i]);
enrollment.attendanceCode = Convert.ToInt32(AllAttendanceCodes[i]);
enrollment.classDays = AllclassDays[i];
enrollment.CourseID = Convert.ToInt32 (AllCourseIds[i]);
//update rows
}
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
db.Entry(student).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("someView");
}
Can you help me with just being able to update values in the database?
While I was looking at the code here, my initial thought is that it doesn't seem quite right to have a for loop that updates the student and enrollment objects multiple times and then to have only one call to db.SaveChanges outside the loop. This is concerning because only the last iteration of the for loop will be applied when the data is saved to the database. (You have a comment to "update rows" at the end of the for loop - perhaps some code is missing or misplaced?)
Then, I started thinking about why it would be necessary to manually set the Entry(...).State property. Wouldn't the db automatically know that an object is modified and needs to be saved? That lead me to this question: Where is db defined? What technology stack is being used there?
Finally, after making an assumption that the db object might work something like the MS LINQ-to-SQL feature, I noticed that the the student object is newly instantiated before the for loop. This is fine for inserting new data, but if you are wanting to update existing data, I believe you need to first get a copy of the object from the database and then update the properties. This allows the db object to monitor the changes (again, assuming that it has this capability). (If this is not the case, then it leads me to wonder how the db will know which record in the database to update since you are not setting anything that appears to be a primary key, such as StudentId, on the student object in the loop.)
As mentioned in the title, how many methods are available?
I just have this case: I get a entity object from one ObjectContext, and then I detach the entity obejct from OjbectContext object, and return it.
Later, if I make some changes on this object, and I want to save the changes back to database. I think I should write like this, right? (Well, this works for me.)
public Url GetOneUrl()
{
Url u;
using(ServicesEntities ctx = new ServicesEntities())
{
u = (from t in ctx.Urls select t).FirstOrDefault<Url>();
ctx.Detach(u);
}
return u;
}
public void SaveToDB(Url url)
{
using(ServicesEntities ctx = new ServicesEntities())
{
var t = ctx.GetObjectByKey(_Url.EntityKey) as Url;
ctx.Detach(t);
ctx.Attach(url);
ctx.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(url, System.Data.EntityState.Modified);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
}
Url url = GetOneUrl();
url.UrsString = "http://google.com"; //I just change the content.
SaveToDB(url);
OR
public void SaveToDB(Url url)
{
using(ServicesEntities ctx = new ServicesEntities())
{
var t = ctx.GetObjectByKey(_Url.EntityKey) as Url;
t = url; //this will make t.UrlString becomes "http://google.com"
ctx.ApplyCurrentValues<Url>("Urls", t);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
}
This way is also works for me.
The first way will generate sql statement to update all the columns of Url table, but the second method will provide a sql script only update the "UrlString" Columns.
Both of them will have to retrieve a temp entity object from database which is the 't' in above code.
Are there any other methods to achieve this purpose? Or other better method you know about it? Or any official solution about this topic?
Many Thanks.
I don't understand your first example. Why do you first get entity from ObjectContext? It is not needed because you have just created new instance of the context. You can just use:
public void SaveToDB(Url url)
{
using(ServicesEntities ctx = new ServicesEntities())
{
ctx.Attach(url);
ctx.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(url, System.Data.EntityState.Modified);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
}
In your second example you can just call:
public void SaveToDB(Url url)
{
using(ServicesEntities ctx = new ServicesEntities())
{
var t = ctx.GetObjectByKey(_Url.EntityKey) as Url; // Ensures that old values are loaded
ctx.ApplyCurrentValues<Url>("Urls", url);
ctx.SaveChanges();
}
}
Now the difference between two approaches is clear. First approach (Attach) does not need to query the DB first. Second approach (ApplyCurrentValues) needs to query the DB first to get old values.
You can use two additional approaches. First is just extension of your former approach. It allows you defining which properties were changed. Second approach is manual synchronization with loaded entity. This approach doesn't use any special methods. You will simply set loaded entity's properties to required values manually. This approach is useful if you work with object graph instead of single entity because EF is not able to automatically synchronize changes in relations.
I am using asp.net mvc for an application. I've taken some guidance from Rob Conery's series on the MVC storefront. I am using a very similar data access pattern to the one that he used in the storefront.
However, I have added a small difference to the pattern. Each class I have created in my model has a property called IsNew. The intention on this is to allow me to specify whether I should be inserting or updating in the database.
Here's some code:
In my controller:
OrderService orderService = new OrderService();
Order dbOrder = orderService.GetOrder(ID);
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
dbOrder.SomeField1 = "Whatever1";
dbOrder.SomeField2 = "Whatever2";
dbOrder.DateModified = DateTime.Now;
dbOrder.IsNew = false;
orderService.SaveOrder(dbOrder);
}
And then in the SQLOrderRepository:
public void SaveOrder(Order order)
{
ORDER dbOrder = new ORDER();
dbOrder.O_ID = order.ID;
dbOrder.O_SomeField1 = order.SomeField1;
dbOrder.O_SomeField2 = order.SomeField2;
dbOrder.O_DateCreated = order.DateCreated;
dbOrder.O_DateModified = order.DateModified;
if (order.IsNew)
db.ORDERs.InsertOnSubmit(dbOrder);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
If I change the controller code so that the dbOrder.IsNew = true; then the code works, and the values are inserted correctly.
However, if I set the dbOrder.IsNew = false; then nothing happens...there are no errors - it just doesn't update the order.
I am using DebuggerWriter here: http://www.u2u.info/Blogs/Kris/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=11 to trace the SQL that is being generated, and as expected, when the IsNew value is true, the Insert SQL is generated and executed properly. However, when IsNew is set to false, there appears to be no SQL generated, so nothing is executed.
I've verified that the issue here (LINQ not updating on .SubmitChanges()) is not the problem.
Any help is appreciated.
In your SaveOrder method you are always creating a new ORDER object. You need to change this so that if order.IsNew is false, it retrieves the existing one from the DB and updates it instead.
public void SaveOrder(Order order)
{
ORDER dbOrder;
if (order.IsNew)
{
dbOrder = new ORDER();
dbOrder.O_ID = order.ID;
}
else
{
dbOrder = (from o in db.ORDERS where o.O_ID == order.ID select o).Single();
}
dbOrder.O_SomeField1 = order.SomeField1;
dbOrder.O_SomeField2 = order.SomeField2;
dbOrder.O_DateCreated = order.DateCreated;
dbOrder.O_DateModified = order.DateModified;
if (order.IsNew)
db.ORDERs.InsertOnSubmit(dbOrder);
db.SubmitChanges();
}
I think you have the problem that your entity is detached from your context.
You should try to attach your entity back to your context if you want to update. The downside of LINQtoSQL is that for the re-attachment you'll need the original state of the object when it was detached...
Another solution is to re-get your entity from the context and copy all the data from your entity in the parameter. This will do until you'll have more complex entities.
What tvanfosson said.
I would just like to add that I use logic where if Id equals default(0 or Empty if using guids), then I assume it is new. Otherwise if I have the id passed in, then I go get the existing object and update it.