Rather simple question regarding entity framework and how to consume the objectcontext.
In a asp.net webform application I am implementing most of data getters in a data class and trying to determine if its better (in a generic sense of better) to have a private context for the entire class or declare a context in each of the methods.
Example 1:
public class Data
{
private MyEntity context = new MyEntity();
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
return context.Customer.Single();
}
public Order GetOrder()
{
return context.Order.Single();
}
}
Or Example 2:
public class Data
{
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
using (MyEntity ctx = new MyEntity())
{
return context.Customer.Single();
}
}
public Order GetOrder()
{
using (MyEntity ctx = new MyEntity())
{
return context.Order.Single();
}
}
}
Personally im a big fan of using a shared context across your whole post back, however neither of these scenarios really achieve this. My personal preference is to use a dependency injection container such as ninject to manage the lifecycle of your EF context. This means that you can make your whole postback transactional.
in terms of implementation I would go for soemthing like the following:
public class Data
{
private MyContext _context;
public Data(MyContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public Customer GetCustomer()
{
return _context.Customer.Single();
}
public Order GetOrder()
{
return _context.Order.Single();
}
}
with a binding similar to:
Bind<MyContext>().ToSelf().InRequestScope();
Related
Im using asp.net core. Here is the basic way to use model with controller.
public class BookController : Controller
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context { get; set; }
public BookController(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public IActionResult Create(Book model)
{
// adding new model
}
public IActionResult Edit(Book model)
{
// modifying the model
}
public IActionResult Delete(Book model)
{
// removing the model
}
}
My question: when shall/should I implement the code inside the controller? When shall/should I implement it in another class?
Something like this:
public interface IBook
{
int Add(Book book);
int Update(Book book);
int Remove(Book book);
}
public class BookData : IBook
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context { get; set; }
BookData(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context
}
public int Add(Book model)
{
// ...
return _context.SaveChanges();
}
// other implements...
}
Then, calling it inside controller:
public IActionResult Create(Book model)
{
var bookData = new BookData(_context);
int result = bookData.Add(model);
// ...
}
For the interface, I think it may be useful for the case: I have many controllers that require same action/method names.
Example: MessageController requires 3 actions/methods at least (Create/Add, Edit/Update, Delete/Remove). It's same to NotificationController class, CommentController class...
So, the interface can be improved to:
public interface IMyService<T> where T : class
{
int Add(T model);
int Update(T model);
int Remove(T model);
}
public class MyService<T> : IMyService<T> where T : class
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context { get; set; }
public MyService(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public int Add(T model)
{
Type type = typeof(model);
if (type == typeof(Book))
{
// adding new book model
}
else if (type == typeof(Comment))
{
// adding new comment model
}
// ...
return -1;
}
// other implements...
}
Do I misunderstand something?
If I read it correctly with data classes you actually means repository (which is an abstraction over the persistence layer). You should always encapsulate persistence logic behind a class (be it via repository pattern, command/query pattern or request handler) and use it instead of directly using the context in your service classes.
That being said, you can directly inject your BookData to your controller instead of the ApplicationDbContext. One thing you should consider you lose in your current implementation is the Unit of Work pattern. Right now, every add will instantly persist the data.
This may not be what you want, so you should move the _context.SaveChanges(); outside of the Add/Remove/Update methods and call it explicitly. This allows you to insert i.e. 10 records and if one of them fails, nothing will be persisted to the database.
But if you call _context.SaveChanges(); after each insert and you get an error in the 8th (of 10) records, then 7 get persisted and 3 will be missing and you get inconsistent data.
Controller shouldn't contain any logic at all, only do short validation of the input model (ModelState.IsValid check) and if its okay, call the services which do all the logic and report the result back to the user. Only in very simple tutorials and guides logic is put into the controller action for reasons of simplicity. In real world applications you should never do that. Controllers are much harder to unit test than service classes.
My simple repository's getAll method:
public List<ListModel> GetAllLists()
{
using (MySqlConnection connection = new MySqlConnection(this.connectionString))
{
return connection.Query<ListModel>("SELECT * FROM projectx.lists").AsList();
}
}
I'm using this class I've found here in so to handle caching:
public class CacheUtils : ICacheService
{
public TValue Get<TValue>(string cacheKey, Func<TValue> getItemCallback, double durationInMinutes = 120) where TValue : class
{
TValue item = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as TValue;
if (item == null)
{
Debug.WriteLine("Not cached");
item = getItemCallback();
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(durationInMinutes));
}
else
Debug.WriteLine("Cached!");
return item;
}
public TValue Get<TValue, TId>(string cacheKeyFormat, TId id, Func<TId, TValue> getItemCallback, double durationInMinutes = 120) where TValue : class
{
string cacheKey = string.Format(cacheKeyFormat, id);
TValue item = MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) as TValue;
if (item == null)
{
item = getItemCallback(id);
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(durationInMinutes));
}
return item;
}
}
Home controller:
public ActionResult Index()
{
ListRepository listRep = new ListRepository();
CacheUtils cache = new CacheUtils();
return View(cache.Get("lists", listRep.GetAllLists));
}
Question, is there a better way of handling cache than calling the helper from the controller? Ideally, it should be inside the repository method. But do I need to repeat the check for existing cache data on every single method of the repository? Ie.:
public List<ListModel> GetAllLists()
{
var lists = Cache["lists"];
if(lists == null)
{
using (MySqlConnection connection = new MySqlConnection(this.connectionString))
{
lists = connection.Query<ListModel>("SELECT * FROM projectx.lists").AsList();
}
Cache["lists"] = lists;
}
return ((List<ListModel>)lists);
}
Use a decorator pattern and don't polute business or ui with caching logic.
Wire it up with something like ninject (or poor bastards if you dont want to add a DI) I'd recommend marking it as single instance.
Benefits include:
Adding a invalidating method like void Save(ListModel) is easy to
invalidate the cache.
Your top layer and bottom layer know nothing
about the fact they have been cached.
You can also decorate again to add in logging, profiling, etc
You can also control the caching life cycle
you don't polute the controller level with caching logic
easy to remove
So something like the below would work. For how too add decorators in ninject see https://stackoverflow.com/a/8910599/1073280
public class MyHomeController
{
private readonly IListCrud _listcrud;
public MyHomeController(IListCrud listcrud)
{
_listcrud = listcrud;
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View(_listcrud.GetAllLists());
}
}
public interface IListCrud
{
List<ListModel> GetAllLists();
}
public class ListCrud : IListCrud
{
public List<ListModel> GetAllLists()
{
using (MySqlConnection connection = new MySqlConnection(this.connectionString))
{
return connection.Query<ListModel>("SELECT * FROM projectx.lists").AsList();
}
}
}
public class ListCrudCache : IListCrud
{
private readonly ICacheService _cache;
private readonly IListCrud _inner;
public ListCrudCache(ICacheService cache, IListCrud inner)
{
_cache = cache;
_inner = inner;
}
public List<ListModel> GetAllLists()
{
return _cache.Get("lists", _inner.GetAllLists);
}
}
Opinion: maybe just to keep the code small but be careful using select * with a ORM. if someone renames or removes a column you wont have any easy to unit test/detect failure mechanism.
In my opinion it shouldn't be in the repository, as it (to me) smells like violation or SRP. Caching should be a higher level service above the repository.
You need to think about what actually needs the benefits of the caching. If the caching is for speeding up the WEB API interface, then having it in the controller is the best way by far. If you need caching elsewhere too, consider introducing some middle layer service classes and put caching there, but I would always make it optional in some way.
In an effort to make my entities persistent ignorant and make my repositories testable, I've implemented a repository pattern like so:
public interface IJobRepository : IRepository<Job>
{
Job GetJobById(int jobId); //Special case where I'm eager loading other entities
void SaveJob(Job job, Job originalJob);
}
public class JobRepository : IJobRepository
{
private readonly IContext _context;
public JobRepository()
{
_context = new CustomObjectContext();
}
public JobRepository(UnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_context = unitOfWork.Context;
}
//Basic GetAll, GetById, Add and Delete methods from IRepository<T> Interface here
//omitted for brevity
public Job GetJobById(int jobId)
{
var job = _context.Jobs.Include("Company").Include("Location").
Include("PlantInfo").Where(j => j.Jobid == jobId).SingleOrDefault();
_context.DisposeContext();
return job;
}
public void SaveJob(Job job, Job originalJob)
{
if (job.Jobid > 0)
{
// Update
_context.Jobs.Attach(originalJob);
_context.PlantInfoes.Attach(originalJob.PlantInfo);
_context.Jobs.ApplyCurrentValues(job);
_context.PlantInfoes.ApplyCurrentValues(job.PlantInfo);
Note: ApplyCurrentValues is an extension method I'm using on the ObjectSet
}
else
{
// Create
_context.Jobs.AddObject(job);
}
_context.Save();
}
}
public class UnitOfWork
{
private readonly IContext _context;
public UnitOfWork()
{
_context = new CustomObjectContext();
}
public UnitOfWork(IContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public string Save()
{
return _context.Save();
}
internal IContext Context
{
get { return _context; }
}
}
public interface IContext
{
IObjectSet<Job> Jobs { get; }
IObjectSet<Company> Companies { get; }
IObjectSet<Location> Locations { get; }
IObjectSet<PlantInfo> PlantInfoes { get; }
string Save();
}
My ObjectContext inherits from IContext...So my understanding is that I will only use the overloaded constructor on the repository to facilitate unit tests or to use it in the case that I want to use the same context (not desirable based on this post I found on SO "Entity Framework and Connection Pooling" -- Is this right?
Also, assuming the context only gets disposed when the repository is garbage collected, I have to dispose the context explicitly to avoid the "An entity object cannot be referenced by multiple instances of IEntityChangeTracker." exception when attaching the entity prior to a save.
That said, what is the best practice for managing the DataContext in a manner that keeps your entities persistent ignorant and repositories testable?
Note: This is an asp.net webapplication; UnitOfWork and IContext implementation was based on examples from "Programming Entity Framework", Second Edition by Julia Lerman Ch24.
Thanks in advance!
Firstly, I would ensure that whatever my "consumable" object is (either repository or unit of work, depending on your setup) implements IDisposable. When your consumbed object is disposed of, then you would dispose your underlying context.
For instance, if you're using your UnitOfWork as the consumable object (the one that gets created and called in your application), it would look something like:
public class UnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
// All the other stuff you had before plus:
public void Dispose ()
{
if (_context != null)
{
_context.Dispose ();
}
}
}
(Note: This can also be done on your repositories if they're the ones being consumed directly)
And then, you have a few options in your application. If you are going to use the UnitOfWork directly, you can use it like:
public void SomeMethodThatAccessesYourData ()
{
using (var unitOfWork = new UnitOfWork (/*Load in the context*/))
{
// Access your data here.
}
}
Or, in your Web Forms or MVC object you can use constructor injection and dispose of it when the Web Forms or MVC object is disposed of:
// If you're using MVC:
public class MyController : Controller
{
private UnitOfWork _unitOfWork;
public MyController (UnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
public override Dispose (bool Disposing)
{
if (Disposing && _unitOfWork != null)
{
_unitOfWork.Dispose ();
}
}
}
The same idea stands for a web forms Page.
The main reason for using the constructor overload is for Inversion of Control (IOC). It helps with both unit testing and with production code when used with an IoC Container. WebForms doesn't lend itself well to IoC, but it is really easy with MVC.
Edit
I don't really see the connection with your repositories and the unit of work. Usually you access the repositories from a unit of work or, in other implementations, you request a unit of work from your target repository. In your implementation (which I understand is not your own) there seems to be no need for both.
Edit 2
If the UoW is overkill for your application, and you know you can use IoC to inject your IContext, and you don't have very many repositories, you can do something like:
public IRepository<T> : IDisposable { }
public IJobRepository : IRepository<Job> { /* All the stuff you put here */ }
public JobRepository : IJobRepository
{
private IContext _context;
...
public void Dispose ()
{
if (_context != null)
{
_context.Dispose ();
}
}
public JobRepository (IContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
}
Then, how you use it depends on your specific task. I'm not a fan of this direct use of IRepository, but this answer is getting too long.
I am going though the Apress ASP.NET MVC 3 book and trying to ensure I create Unit Tests for everything possible but after spending a good part of a day trying to work out why edit's wouldn't save (see this SO question) I wanted to create a unit test for this.
I have worked out that I need to create a unit test for the following class:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private EFDbContext context = new EFDbContext();
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
context.Products.Add(product);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
context.Products.Remove(product);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
public class EFDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
I am using Ninject.MVC3 and Moq and have created several unit tests before (while working though the previously mentioned book) so am slowly getting my head around it. I have already (hopefully correctly) created a constructor method to enable me to pass in _context:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private EFDbContext _context;
// constructor
public EFProductRepository(EFDbContext context) {
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return _context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
_context.Products.Add(product);
} else {
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
_context.Products.Remove(product);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
}
BUT this is where I start to have trouble... I believe I need to create an Interface for EFDbContext (see below) so I can replace it with a mock repo for the tests BUT it is built on the class DbContext:
public class EFDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
from System.Data.Entity and I can't for the life of me work out how to create an interface for it... If I create the following interface I get errors due to lack of the method .SaveChanges() which is from the DbContext class and I can't build the interface using "DbContext" like the `EFDbContext is as it's a class not an interface...
using System;
using System.Data.Entity;
using SportsStore.Domain.Entities;
namespace SportsStore.Domain.Concrete {
interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
}
The original Source can be got from the "Source Code/Downloads" on this page encase I have missed something in the above code fragments (or just ask and I will add it).
I have hit the limit of what I understand and no mater what I search for or read I can't seem to work out how I get past this. Please help!
The problem here is that you have not abstracted enough. The point of abstractions/interfaces is to define a contract that exposes behavior in a technology-agnostic way.
In other words, it is a good first step that you created an interface for the EFDbContext, but that interface is still tied to the concrete implementation - DbSet (DbSet).
The quick fix for this is to expose this property as IDbSet instead of DbSet. Ideally you expose something even more abstract like IQueryable (though this doesn't give you the Add() methods, etc.). The more abstract, the easier it is to mock.
Then, you're left with fulfilling the rest of the "contract" that you rely on - namely the SaveChanges() method.
Your updated code would look like this:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private IEFDbContext context;
public EFProductRepository(IEFDbContext context) {
this.context = context;
}
...
}
public interface IEFDbContext {
IDbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}
BUT... the main question you have to ask is: what are you trying to test (conversely, what are you trying to mock out/avoid testing)? In other words: are you trying to validate how your application works when something is saved, or are you testing the actual saving.
If you're just testing how your application works and don't care about actually saving to the database, I'd consider mocking at a higher level - the IProductRepository. Then you're not hitting the database at all.
If you want to make sure that your objects actually get persisted to the database, then you should be hitting the DbContext and don't want to mock that part after all.
Personally, I consider both of those scenarios to be different - and equally important - and I write separate tests for each of them: one to test that my application does what it's supposed to do, and another to test that the database interaction works.
I guess your current code looks something like this (I put in the interface):
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private IEFDbContext _context;
// constructor
public EFProductRepository(IEFDbContext context) {
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return _context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
_context.Products.Add(product);
} else {
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
**_context.SaveChanges();**
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
_context.Products.Remove(product);
**_context.SaveChanges();**
}
}
public class EFDbContext : DbContext, IEFDbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
The problem is EFProductRepository now expects an object implementing the IEFDbContext interface, but this interface does not define the SaveChanges method used at the lines I put between the asteriskes so the compiler starts complaining.
Defining the SaveChanges method on the IEFDbContext interface solves your problem:
public interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}
I am using unity, entity framework 4 with POCO classes, repository pattern for DAL and services for Business Logic control.
I also want to use Unit of Work so I can package together CRUD operations which I perform on different services and then commit them all together.
My question is what would be the proper way to inject the Unit Of Work mechanism into my application using Microsoft Unity?
I understand that I can put the IUnitOfWork together with the repository on the constructor of the proper service and then if Unity mapping is specified it would auto initiate the proper instances, but this way I do not pass the global unit of work but rather create a new instance on each level, which can't be a smart way to do it (actually the repository is initiated even before the service).
What am I missing? (Attached is constructor code as I wrote it now of service and its repository).
U also understand that I can use Unity's ParameterOverrides method to take some global instance of Unit of Work (lets say from my aspx.cs file) and pass it into the service and then into the repository. But it seems a bit lame. Is this my only option?
Thanks
public class GenericRepository<T> : IUnitOfWorkRepository, IGenericRepository<T> where T : BaseEntity, IAggregateRoot
{
private IUnitOfWork _uow;
/// <summary>
/// Returns the active object context
/// </summary>
private ObjectContext ObjectContext
{
get
{
return ObjectContextManager.GetObjectContext();
}
}
public GenericRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
{
_uow = uow;
}
//blahhhh...
public void Add(T entity)
{
_uow.RegisterNew(entity, this);
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
_uow.RegisterRemoved(entity, this);
}
//.....blah blah....
public void PersistCreationOf(IAggregateRoot entity)
{
this.ObjectContext.AddObject(GetEntitySetName(), entity);
}
public void PersistUpdateOf(IAggregateRoot entity)
{
// Do nothing as EF tracks changes
}
public void PersistDeletionOf(IAggregateRoot entity)
{
this.ObjectContext.DeleteObject(entity);
}
}
public class CategoryRepository : GenericRepository<XComSolutions.FB.Domain.Model.Entities.Category>, ICategoryRepository
{
public CategoryRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
: base(uow)
{ }
}
public class CategoryService : ICategoryService
{
public int myID {get; set;}
private ICategoryRepository _categoryRepository;
private IUnitOfWork _uow;
public CategoryService(ICategoryRepository categoryRepository,
IUnitOfWork uow)
{
_categoryRepository = categoryRepository;
_uow = uow;
}
public List<Category> GetAll()
{
return _categoryRepository.GetAll();
}
}
Define an IUnitOfWorkFactory and inject that in your services:
public class Service
{
private readonly IUnitOfWorkFactory factory;
public Service(IUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void DoOperation()
{
using (UnitOfWork context = this.factory.CreateNew())
{
this.DoSomeStuff(context);
this.DoMoreStuff(context);
context.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
What I think you need to do is to define unit of work factory. You register this factory with your DI container and you resolve for this factory every time you need your unit of work. Then you get unit of work from the factory, work with it and let it go. You often will see that you need your unit of work within a scope of single method or single class. This article discuss Unit of Work pattern in connection with Entity Framework: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd882510.aspx