Here is my Enum:
public enum AdvertStatus
{
Active,
Archived
}
And my entity type:
public record Advertisement
{
...
public AdvertStatus Status { get; set; }
...
}
In database it's stored as int, Database is Postgree
When I try to compare it like so:
data = data.Where(x => x.Status == searchValues.Status);
Entity Framework throws an exception sayng:
.Status == (int)__searchValues_Status_3)' could not be translated. Either rewrite the query in a form that can be translated, or switch to client evaluation explicitly by inserting a call to 'AsEnumerable', 'AsAsyncEnumerable', 'ToList', or 'ToListAsync'.
I tried solutions from this question: LINQ TO ENTITY cannot compare to enumeration types but it did't work.
EDIT 1:
data is database table context IQueryable<AdvertisementDTO>
searchValues.Status is type of AdvertStatus from search filter
The issue may be higher up in your Linq query, such as you are attempting to project with a Select or ProjectTo before filtering. For simple types like int/string this should work, but depending on how your DTO is declared you might be introducing problems for mpgsql.
For instance if your query is something like:
var query = _context.Advertisements
.Select(x => new AdvertisementDTO
{
// populate DTO
}).Where(x => x.Status == searchValues.Status)
// ....
then npgsql may be having issues attempting to resolve the types between what is in the DTO and the enumeration in your searchValues. From what the exception detail looks like, npgsql is trying to be "safe" with the enum and casting to intbut feeding that to PostgreSQL that results in invalid SQL. I did some quick checks and the DTO would need to be using the same Enum type (C# complains if the DTO cast the value to int, cannot use == between AdvertStatus and int fortunately) The project may have something like a value converter or other hook trying to translate enumerations which is getting brought into the mix and gunking up the works.
Try performing the Where conditions prior to projection:
var query = _context.Advertisements
.Where(x => x.Status == searchValues.Status)
.Select(x => new AdvertisementDTO
{
// populate DTO
})
// ....
If the data value is stored as an Int then this should work out of the box. npgsql does support mapping to string (which would require a ValueConverter) as well as database declared enumerations. (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-enum.html) However, Int columns should work fine /w enums.
If that doesn't work, I'd try with a new DbContext instance pointed at the DB and a simple entity with that Enum to load a row from that table to eliminate whether npgsql is translating the enum correctly, just to eliminate any possible converters or other code that the main DbContext/models/DTOs may be contributing.
It was all my mistake in higher repo Select projection.
Thanks you all for help. Cheers.
Related
I've migrated concepts from a couple of CQRS frameworks I've seen and just started facing some issues.
I have a common EntityDbContext subclass which I use in any consuming project without further extension to suit the domain of the application, rather I provide interfaces, IReadEntities and IWriteEntities which have methods like Query() and Get() which behind the scenes call Set() returning the DbSet() then allowing the standard LINQ expressions to be chained on as for any EF query. I'm facing issues around using Include() on my IQueryables as I'm using LinqKit with AsExpandable() at the end of all my calls. This is what my context Query methods look like
public new IQueryable<TEntity> Query<TEntity>() where TEntity : class, IEntity
{
// AsNoTracking returns entities that are not attached to the DbContext
return QueryUnfiltered<TEntity>().Where(_recordAuthority.Clause<TEntity>());
}
public IQueryable<TEntity> QueryUnfiltered<TEntity>() where TEntity : class, IEntity
{
// AsNoTracking returns entities that are not attached to the DbContext
return Set<TEntity>().AsNoTracking().AsExpandable();
}
A typical query handler looks like this:
public async Task<IEnumerable<GetCustomerView>> Handle(CustomersBy query, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var customers = _db.Query<Customer>();
// Apply filters
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(query.FirstName))
customers = customers.Where(x => x.FirstName.Contains(query.FirstName));
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(query.LastName))
customers = customers.Where(x => x.LastName.Contains(query.LastName));
// Execute the query and return the results
var view = await customers.Select(x => new GetCustomerView
{
Id = x.Id,
FirstName = x.FirstName,
LastName = x.LastName,
EmailAddress = x.EmailAddress
}).ToListAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false) as IEnumerable<GetCustomerView>;
return view;
}
This scenario works fine if I wanted to pull address details from a related table as I use projection on the database serve given I'm using the Select prior to execution. There are scenarios though where it makes sense to pull an object graph back and specify Include(...) statements but as it stands specifying _db.Query<Customer>().Include(c => c.Address) doesn't hydrate the Address navigation property. I've tried leaving the AsExpandable() off and then the results come back.
The question is, does anyone see a way to allow the Include statements to be provided maybe as a parameter to the method and then I loop through them and tack them on before calling AsExpandable()? I can't quite get my head around how to do it, if it's possible.
Maybe there's another approach?
Interestingly this apparently works fine on a version of this pattern a colleague uses where they are using EF 6. He says they specify Include after the AsExpandable without a problem.
This is known issue with EF Core and LinqKit AsExpandable (and in general with any extension library which uses custom IQueryProvider to perform its query expression tree preprocessing like LinqKit), because EF Core ignores all EF Core specific IQueryable extensions (Include / ThenInclude, AsNoTracking etc.) it the query provider is different (or does not inherit) the EF Core one (EF6 has no such requirements).
With that being said, currently there is no other solution than applying all EF Core specific extensions before calling AsExpandable.
Ok this works. I created an overload:
public IQueryable<TEntity> Query<TEntity, TProperty>(IEnumerable<Expression<Func<TEntity, TProperty>>> includes) where TEntity : class, IEntity
{
var query = Set<TEntity>().AsNoTracking();
foreach (var expression in includes)
{
query = query.Include(expression);
}
return query.AsExpandable();
}
From my handler I create a list of include expressions and pass to the Query:
var includes = new List<Expression<Func<Customer, object>>>
{
c => c.Address
};
var customers = _db.Query(includes);
var result = await customers.ToListAsync(cancellationToken).ConfigureAwait(false);
Execution of the query has the navigation property populated:
Means I'm not 'Fluent'ly chaining them from the client code's perspective, but I don't think it's terrible.
Thoughts?
To make updates to a record of SQL Server using Entity Framework Core, I query the record I need to update, make changes to the object and then call .SaveChanges(). This works nice and clean.
For example:
var emp = _context.Employee.FirstOrDefault(item => item.IdEmployee == Data.IdEmployee);
emp.IdPosition = Data.IdPosition;
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
But is there a standard method if I want to update multiple records?
My first approach was using a list passing it to the controller, but then I would need to go through that list and save changes every time, never really finished this option as I regarded it as not optimal.
For now what I do is instead of passing a list to the controller, I pass each object to the controller using a for. (kind of the same...)
for(int i = 0; i < ObjectList.Count; i ++)
{
/* Some code */
var httpResponseObject = await MyRepositories.Post<Object>(url+"/Controller", Object);
}
And then do the same thing on the controller as before, when updating only one record, for each of the records...
I don't feel this is the best possible approach, but I haven't found another way, yet.
What would be the optimal way of doing this?
Your question has nothing to do with Blazor... However, I'm not sure I understand what is the issue. When you call the SaveChangesAsync method, all changes in your context are committed to the database. You don't have to pass one object at a time...You can pass a list of objects
Hope this helps...
Updating records in bulk using Entity Framework or other Object Relational Mapping (ORM) libraries is a common challenge because they will run an UPDATE command for every record. You could try using Entity Framework Plus, which is an extension to do bulk updates.
If updating multiple records with a single call is critical for you, I would recommend just writing a stored procedure and call if from your service. Entity Framework can also run direct queries and stored procedures.
It looks like the user makes some changes and then a save action needs to persist multiple records at the same time. You could trigger multiple AJAX calls—or, if you need, just one.
What I would do is create an endpoint—with an API controller and an action—that's specific to your needs. For example, to update the position of records in a table:
Controller:
/DataOrder
Action:
[HttpPut]
public async void Update([FromBody] DataChanges changes)
{
foreach(var change in changes)
{
var dbRecord = _context.Employees.Find(change.RecordId);
dbRecord.IdPosition = change.Position;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
public class DataChanges
{
public List<DataChange> Items {get;set;}
public DataChangesWrapper()
{
Items = new List<DataChange>();
}
}
public class DataChange
{
public int RecordId {get;set;}
public int Position {get;set;}
}
The foreach statement will execute an UPDATE for every record. If you want a single database call, however, you can write a SQL query or have a stored procedure in the database and pass the data as a DataTable parameter instead.
Using Breeze, what is the simplest way to populate a GUID key when an entity is created?
I'll assume that your entity is configured such that the client is responsible for setting the Guid key for new entities. That's the default for the Guid key of an Entity Framework Code First entity; it is as if the key property were adorned with [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
The obvious approach is to set the key after creating the entity and before adding it to the manager, e.g.:
function createFoo() {
var foo = fooType.createEntity();
foo.id(breeze.core.getUuid()); // Knockout implementation
manager.addEntity(foo);
}
This may be all you ever need.
On the other hand, you may find that you're creating new Foos in many places and for some strange reason you can't use the createFoo function. You certainly don't want to repeat that code.
You can extend the Foo entity type with id-setting behavior after which you'd be able to write:
function createFoo() {
var foo = fooType.createEntity(); // foo.id is set for you
manager.addEntity(foo);
}
There are two approaches to consider - custom constructor and type initializer; both are described in "Extending Entities"
Constructor
You can initialize the key inside a custom constructor. Breeze calls the constructor both when you create the entity and when it materializes a queried entity. Breeze will replace the initial key value when materializing.
Here's an example that assumes the Knockout model library.
function Foo() {
foo.id(breeze.core.getUuid()); // using KO
}
// one way to get the MetadataStore
var store = manager.metadataStore;
// register the ctor with the Foo type
store.registerEntityTypeCtor("Foo", Foo);
Pretty simple. The only downside is that Breeze will generate a Guid every time it makes an entity, whether creating a new one or materializing one from a query. It's wasted effort during materialization but so what? Well, I suppose that might become a performance issue although I wouldn't assume so until I had measured it.
Initializer
Suppose you measured and the repeated Guid generation is a serious problem (really?). You could set the key in a type initializer instead and only call the Guid generator when creating a new entity.
Breeze calls a type initializer after the entity has been created or materialized from query just before returning that entity to the application. Clearly you don't want to overwrite a materialized key from the database so you'll test the key value to make sure it's not real (i.e. to make sure you're fixing a created entity) before assigning it. Here's an example.
function fooInitializer(foo) {
var emptyGuid = "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000";
if (foo.id() !=== emptyGuid) {
foo.id(breeze.core.getUuid());
}
}
var store = manager.metadataStore;
// register the initializer; no ctor in this example
store.registerEntityTypeCtor("Foo", function(){}, fooInitializer);
Assuming you have a Guid surrogate Key on all your entities like we have in our case, you could code a createInstance factory that does the following in a very generic approach:
function createInstance(breezeEntityManager, typeName) {
var keyProperty = breezeEntityManager.metadataStore.getEntityType(typeName, false).dataProperties.filter(function (p) {
return p.isPartOfKey;
})[0];
var config = {};
config[keyProperty.name] = breeze.core.getUuid();
return breezeEntityManager.createEntity(typeName, config);
}
This way, you won't have to create an initializer for all your entities.
When I query from the entity framework I always query in a detached state so that the records retrieved can be stored in cache for subsequent requests.
Right now I have a form that the user can edit which contains a parent record, and then two lists of parent records.
When the data is POSTed to the server, I take my view models and map them into the entity framework objects using AutoMapper. The data looks fine; AutoMapper is mapping the data correctly.
When I attach the object so that I can update it, an exception is thrown: A referential integrity constraint violation occurred: The property values that define the referential constraints are not consistent between principal and dependent objects in the relationship.
public static void UpdateOrder(ShippingOrder shippingOrder) {
using (OrderEntity orderContext = new OrderEntity()) {
//Exception happens here
orderContext.ShippingOrders.Attach(shippingOrder);
//Update the order itself; mark the order has being modified so the EF will update it.
orderContext.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(shippingOrder, System.Data.EntityState.Modified);
//Perform the update.
orderContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
The EntityFramework (EF) seems to think that my keys aren't lining up, but I'm not sure what isn't correct. The foreign key property does have the correct value, so I'm not sure what it's checking. Does anyone have any ideas?
You might try something like this:
ShippingOrder existingShippingOrder = orderContext.ShippingOrders.Find(shippingOrder.ID);
orderContext.Entry(existingShippingOrder ).CurrentValues.SetValues(shippingOrder);
Instead of
orderContext.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(shippingOrder, System.Data.EntityState.Modified);
try this
orderContext.Entry(ShippingOrder).State = EntityState.Modified;
as explained here
Insert or update pattern A common pattern for some applications is to
either Add an entity as new (resulting in a database insert) or Attach
an entity as existing and mark it as modified (resulting in a database
update) depending on the value of the primary key. For example, when
using database generated integer primary keys it is common to treat an
entity with a zero key as new and an entity with a non-zero key as
existing. This pattern can be achieved by setting the entity state
based on a check of the primary key value. For example:
public void InsertOrUpdate(DbContext context, Unicorn unicorn)
{
context.Entry(unicorn).State = unicorn.Id == 0 ?
EntityState.Added :
EntityState.Modified;
context.SaveChanges();
}
you can try
public static void UpdateOrder(ShippingOrder shippingOrder) {
using (OrderEntity orderContext = new OrderEntity()) {
orderContext.Entry(shippingOrder).State = shippingOrder.Id==0?
EntityState.Added :
EntityState.Modified;
orderContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
UPDATE:
for ObjectContext class you can try
public static void UpdateOrder(ShippingOrder shippingOrder) {
using (OrderEntity orderContext = new OrderEntity()) {
orderContext.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(shippingOrder, EntityState.Modified);
orderContext.SaveChanges();
}
}
My scenario:
This is an ASP.NET 4.0 web app programmed via C#
I implement a repository pattern. My repositorys all share the same ObjectContext, which is stored in httpContext.Items. Each repository creates a new ObjectSet of type E. Heres some code from my repository:
public class Repository<E> : IRepository<E>, IDisposable
where E : class
{
private DataModelContainer _context = ContextHelper<DataModelContainer>.GetCurrentContext();
private IObjectSet<E> _objectSet;
private IObjectSet<E> objectSet
{
get
{
if (_objectSet == null)
{
_objectSet = this._context.CreateObjectSet<E>();
}
return _objectSet;
}
}
public IQueryable<E> GetQuery()
{
return objectSet;
}
Lets say I have 2 repositorys, 1 for states and 1 for countrys and want to create a linq query against both. Note that I use POCO classes with the entity framework. State and Country are 2 of these POCO classes.
Repository stateRepo = new Repository<State>();
Repository countryRepo = new Repository<Country>();
IEnumerable<State> states = (from s in _stateRepo.GetQuery()
join c in _countryRepo.GetQuery() on s.countryID equals c.countryID
select s).ToList();
Debug.WriteLine(states.First().Country.country)
essentially, I want to retrieve the state and the related country entity. The query only returns the state data... and I get a null argument exception on the Debug.WriteLine
LazyLoading is disabled in my .edmx... thats the way I want it.
You're doing a join without retrieving anything from it. There are multiple solutions to your problem:
Use Include to load the dependent entities: from s in ((ObjectSet<State>) _stateRepo.GetQuery).Include("Country"). The problem with this approach is that you should expose the ObjectSet directly rather than as a IQueryable if you want to avoid casting.
Use context.LoadProperty(states.First(), s => s.Country) to explicitly load the Country from the database for a given state.
Select both entities in the query: from s in ... join c ... select new { s, c }. You won't be able to access directly the state's Country property but you have it in the anonymous type.
Enable lazy loading.
Your repository implementation is very similar to mine, especially the way you are storing the ObjectContext. It works fine for me, so I don't think it's a conceptual problem.
Try using a static objectcontext (no wrapper) just to see if that fixes the problem. Perhaps there is a bug in your ContextHelper which causes your context to get disposed and recreated.