I'm having a problem updating a disconnected POCO model in an ASP.NET application.
Lets say we have the following model:
Users
Districts
Orders
A user can be responsible for 0 or more districts, an order belongs to a district and a user can be the owner of an order.
When the user logs in the user and the related districts are loaded. Later the user loads an order, and sets himself as the owner of the order. The user(and related districts) and order(and related district) are loaded in two different calls with two different dbcontexts. When I save the order after the user has assigned himself to it. I get an exception that saying that acceptchanges cannot continue because the object's key values conflict with another object.
Which is not strange, since the same district can appear both in the list of districts the user is responsible and on the order.
I've searched high and low for a solution to this problem, but the answers I have found seems to be either:
Don't load the related entities of one of the objects in my case that would be the districts of the user.
Don't assign the user to the order by using the objects, just set the foreign key id on the order object.
Use nHibernate since it apparently handles it.
I tried 1 and that works, but I feel this is wrong because I then either have to load the user without it's districts before relating it to the order, or do a shallow clone. This is fine for this simple case here, but the problem is that in my case district might appear several more times in the graph. Also it seems pointless since I have the objects so why not let me connected them and update the graph. The reason I need the entire graph for the order, is that I need to display all the information to the user. So since I got all the objects why should I need to either reload or shallow clone it to get this to work?
I tried using STE but I ran in to the same problem, since I cannot attach an object to a graph loaded by another context. So I am back at square 1.
I would assume that this is a common problem in anything but tutorial code. Yet, I cannot seem to find any good solution to this. Which makes me think that either I do not under any circumstance understand using POCOs/EF or I suck at using google to find an answer to this problem.
I've bought both of the "Programming Entity Framework" books from O'Reilly by Julia Lerman but cannot seem to find anything to solve my problem in those books either.
Is there anyone out there who can shed some light on how to handle graphs where some objects might be repeated and not necessarily loaded from the same context.
The reason why EF does not allow to have two entities with the same key being attached to a context is that EF cannot know which one is "valid". For example: You could have two District objects in your object graph, both with a key Id = 1, but the two have different Name property values. Which one represents the data that have to be saved to the database?
Now, you could say that it doesn't matter if both objects haven't changed, you just want to attach them to a context in state Unchanged, maybe to establish a relationship to another entity. It is true in this special case that duplicates might not be a problem. But I think, it is simply too complex to deal with all situations and different states the objects could have to decide if duplicate objects are causing ambiguities or not.
Anyway, EF implements a strict identity mapping between object reference identity and key property values and just doesn't allow to have more than one entity with a given key attached to a context.
I don't think there is a general solution for this kind of problem. I can only add a few more ideas in addition to the solutions in your question:
Attach the User to the context you are loading the order in:
context.Users.Attach(user); // attaches user AND user.Districts
var order = context.Orders.Include("Districts")
.Single(o => o.Id == someOrderId);
// because the user's Districts are attached, no District with the same key
// will be loaded again, EF will use the already attached Districts to
// populate the order.Districts collection, thus avoiding duplicate Districts
order.Owner = user;
context.SaveChanges();
// it should work without exception
Attach only the entities to the context you need in order to perform a special update:
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
var order = new Order { Id = order.Id };
context.Orders.Attach(order);
var user = new User { Id = user.Id };
context.Users.Attach(user);
order.Owner = user;
context.SaveChanges();
}
This would be enough to update the Owner relationship. You would not need the whole object graph for this procedure, you only need the correct primary key values of the entities the relationship has to be created for. It doesn't work that easy of course if you have more changes to save or don't know what exactly could have been changed.
Don't attach the object graph to the context at all. Instead load new entities from the database that represent the object graph currently stored in the database. Then update the loaded graph with your detached object graph and save the changes applied to the loaded (=attached) graph. An example of this procedure is shown here. It is safe and a very general pattern (but not generic) but it can be very complex for complex object graphs.
Traverse the object graph and replace the duplicate objects by a unique one, for example just the first one with type and key you have found. You could build a dictionary of unique objects that you lookup to replace the duplicates. An example is here.
Related
Problem: Whenever I add an order to the orders array, an additional nested array element(-KOPWA...) gets added. I wouldn't mind except, I don't know how to access that nested string to access it's child nodes.
Example of database node for users below:
firebase.database().ref('users/'+userIdState+'/orders/'+<<unique numbervariable>>).push({
"order":{"test":"product","quantity":2}
});
I'm using the above code to push new json objects with a unique number to the firebase array. Still the nested array with the weird strings gets generated.
Can anyone help me understand how to either: create my own nested array with my own unique string or how to access the nested string that gets generated from firebase so I can access it's children nodes.
Multiple instances of nest arrays will be generated by users.
Any help is much appreciated.
Thanks,
Moe
You're experiencing this behaviour because Firebase's push is not the same as an array push. I recommend reading this article to understand how it works.
As for a solution, you can simply change push to set in your code. This will create the structure you were (presumably) expecting, that is
1:
order:
...
This is however potentially unsafe, if you allow concurrent writes (i. e. if the "unique number" in your example is not always unique).
Afaik Firebase recommends using push to safely create collections/"arrays". You can retrieve the generated key by calling the key property on the reference returned by push. Like this:
var ref = firebase.database().ref('users/'+userIdState+'/orders/'+<<unique numbervariable>>).push({
"order":{"test":"product","quantity":2}
});
var generatedKey = ref.key; // the value you're looking for
If you decide to use it, you can probably just drop the order number you have right now and just use the generated one.
Iterations of this question have been asked in the past, but this presents unique challenges as it combines some of the issues in one larger problem.
I have an entity(User) that is used as the user class in my application, then I have another entity (UserExtra), in a one-to-one relationship with the user entity, UserExtra's id is the same as User. The foreign key is the same as the primary key.
When the user object is loaded (say by $this->getUser() or by {{ app.user }}, the UserExtra data is also loaded through a join. The whole point of having two entities is so I don't have to load all the data at once.
I even tried defining a custom UserLoaderInterface/UserProviderInterface Repository for User, making sure that refreshUser and loadUserByUsername would only load the User data (I'd like for the UserExtra data to sit in a proxy unless I explicitly need it) but when Doctrine goes to Hydrate the object, it issues an extra query to load the UserExtra data, thereby skipping the Proxy status.
Is there a way out of this?
there are many solution for your issue:
1) Change the owning side and inverse side http://developer.happyr.com/choose-owning-side-in-onetoone-relation - I don't think that's right from a DB design perspective every time.
2) In functions like find, findAll, etc, the inverse side in OneToOne is joined automatically (it's always like fetch EAGER). But in DQL, it's not working like fetch EAGER and that costs the additional queries. Possible solution is every time to join with the inverse entity
3) If an alternative result format (i.e. getArrayResult()) is sufficient for some use-cases, that could also avoid this problem.
4) Change inverse side to be OneToMany - just looks wrong, maybe could be a temporary workaround.
5) Force partial objects. No additional queries but also no lazy-loading: $query->setHint (Query::HINT_FORCE_PARTIAL_LOAD, true) - seams to me the only possible solution, but not without a price:
Partial Objects are a little bit risky, because your entity behavior is not normal. For example if you not specify in ->select() all associations that you will user you can have an error because your object will not be full, all not specifically selected associations will be null
6) Not mapping the inverse bi-directional OneToOne association and either use an explicit service or a more active record approach - https://github.com/doctrine/doctrine2/pull/970#issuecomment-38383961 - And it looks like Doctrine closed the issue
this question may help you : one to one relation load
Using EF6 Framework4.5 – Creating my first n-tier app and first EF experience. I have CRUD working but one issue that I have a work-a-around but don’t like it. There must be a better way.
When data object is returned from my UI layer to the DAL layer, it has been detached, so I flag EntityState as “Modified.” But then it updates all columns in the db. Values that were not loaded in the form view (and not submitted) obviously are null and updated to such in the db.
1) My first solution does work:
Store the object in session in the UI layer and loop through the object updating edited values when the form is submitted. Thus, original values are passed back unchanged and updated to original values. I don’t think this would be best practice though.
2) The solution I think I want:
I am looking for a helper function in the DAL layer to loop through all values in the returned object and flag only non-null values as “IsModified” before calling SaveChanges.
I have found examples in C# on how to check for changed value but not null. (I am still a vb guy anyway. Don't hate.)
A) Is solution #2 a good way to do this?
B) Has anyone a piece of good to help me?
Thank you.
BTW, this is my best stab at it so far: (Errors on “CurrentValues”)
Public Overridable Function MarkEntriesModified(entity As Object)
Dim dbEntityEntry = DbContext.Entry(entity)
'Ensure only non-null values are inserted
For Each [property] In dbEntityEntry.CurrentValues.PropertyNames
If Not IsDBNull(dbEntityEntry.CurrentValues.GetValue(Of Object)([property])) Then
dbEntityEntry.[Property]([property]).IsModified = True
End If
Next
Return entity
Try this architecture. So if you are using EF then I suppose you have edmx updated and correctly representing your database objects.
eg: Say you wan to update Customer data in customer table
Create a Customer class.
when you extract a particular customer, get an instance of the
customer created.
pass this instance to the UI
and pass the instance back to Business layer to save
this way you don't loose anything in between.
some sample code
Using the Dynamics CRM I'm trying to create an instance of an entity. I would like to manually set the GUID, but if I had the attribute that is the primary key to the DynamicEntity, I get following error.
Service could not process request
I am building a DynamicEntity, and setting the [entityname]id attribute causes the request to fail. It's moving data between two CRM instances, so if anyone knows of a better way to copy records between CRMs, that'd work too. Otherwise, I'd like the GUID to match across instances... as that's the point of a GUID.
Happily, it IS possible to do this across two CRM instances! A co-worker knew the solution, so credit really belongs to him.
My mistake was creating a Property with type UniqueIdentifierProperty. The primary key attribute on an entity needs to be filled in with a KeyProperty. These two properties are nearly identical -- the Property types are, except that one holds a Key, the other a UniqueIdentifier. The Key/UniqueIdentifier both hold GUIDs. (Another day in the mind of Microsoft!)
Precisely, what I'm doing is creating a DynamicEntity, filling in the entity name, and filling in the majority of the attributes. The PK attribute (which you can determine from the metadata) can be filled in with a KeyProperty. I was filling it in with a UniqueIdentifierProperty, which CRM rejects and responds with a nondescript and unhelpful error message.
I apologize if I am over-simplifying the solution, but why not add a custom field in both instances that would be a mirror of the other instances guid?
Just dipping my toes into Linq2sql project after years of rolling my own SQL Server DB access routines.
Before I spend too much time figuring out how to make linq2sql behave like my custom code used to, I want to check to make sure that it isn't already "built" in behavior that I can just use by setting up the relationships right in the designer...
Very simple example:
I have two tables: Person and Notes, with a 1 to many relationship (1 Person, many notes), linked by Person.ID->Note.PersonID.
I have a stored procedure (all data access is done via SP's and I plan on continuing that) which makes the Link2SQL a bit more work for me.
sp_PersonGet(#ID int) which returns the person record and sp_PersonNotesGet(#PersonID) which returns a set of related notes for this person.
So far so good, I have an object:
Dim myPerson As Person = db.PersonGet(pnID).Single
and I can access my fields: myPerson.Name, myPerson.Phone etc.
and I can also do a
Dim myNotes As Notes = db.PersonNotesGet(pnID)
to get a set of notes and I can iterate thru this list like:
For Each N As Note In myNotes
( do something)
Next
This all works fine...BUT....What I would prefer is that if I call:
myPerson = db.PersonGet(pnID)
that I also end up with a myPerson.Notes collection that I can iterate thru.
For Each N As Note In myPerson.Notes
( do something)
Next
Basically, Linq2SQl would need to call 2 stored procedures each time a Person record is created...
Is this doable "out of the box", or is this something I need to code around for myself?
This is normally what we would call child collections and they can be eager loaded or lazy loaded. Read these:
http://davidhayden.com/blog/dave/archive/2009/01/08/QuickExamplesLINQToSQLPerformanceTuningPerformanceProfilingORMapper.aspx
http://www.thinqlinq.com/default/Fetching-child-records-using-Stored-Procedures-with-LINQ-to-SQL.aspx
It uses partial classes. You can add your own "Notes" property to your Person class and initialize it in it's GETter function. This would be better than populating the notes every time you load a person record.
I believe that you can do this more or less out of the box, although I haven't tried it -- I don't use stored procedures with LINQ. What you would need to do is change the Insert/Delete/Update methods from using the runtime to use your stored procedures. Then you'd create an Association between your two entity tables which would create an EntitySet of Notes on the Person class and a EntityRef of Person on the Notes class. You can set this up to load automatically or using lazy loading.
The only tricky bit, as far as I can see, is the change from using the runtime generated methods to using your stored procedures. I believe that you have to add them into the data context as methods (by dropping it on your table from the server explorer in the designer) before it is available to use instead.