I have two classes with a Many-to-Many relationship. When I save my context, Entity Framework is not using the existing Ids, it creates new entry in my database.
My classes are the following : Country and CountryGroup (in my database EF creates as expected CountryGroupCountries).
public class Country : EntityBase
{
public Country()
{
CountryGroups = new List<CountryGroup>();
}
public virtual List<CountryGroup> CountryGroups { get; set; }
}
public class CountryGroup : EntityBase
{
public CountryGroup()
{
Countries = new List<Country>();
}
public virtual List<Country> Countries { get; set; }
}
public abstract class EntityBase
{
public EntityBase()
{
DateCreate = DateTime.Now;
DateUpdate = DateTime.Now;
DateDelete = DateTime.Now;
}
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Timestamp]
public byte[] RowVersion { get; set; }
[Required]
public virtual String Name { get; set; }
}
I use ASP MVC 4 and Entity Framework 5. When I want to save a CountryGroup, I use Countries that are already in my website. The Ids are the right one.
public virtual void Save(TEntity entity)
{
EntityRepository.Insert(entity);
Context.SaveChanges();
}
I just want EF to save my object and the relation to the countries but not. What solution do I have here ? I Feel like I have a misunderstanding of the way EF manages Many To Many.
After many research I believe that my problem lies on the model binder. It must be only creating object without getting them from the context. I overridded my Save Method to replace each Countries in the CountryGroup entity with a fresh one from the context. It is not optimal but I'm going to studie the model binding and then I will arbitrate between those solutions.
Related
I have an asp.net core mvc project. I'm trying to get over 300+ records from a table(s) using entity framework. Here are the models I have:
public partial class Movies
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Title { get; set; }
public virtual MovieInfoes MovieInfoes { get; set; }
}
public partial class MovieInfoes
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Actors { get; set; }
public string Director { get; set; }
public virtual Movies IdNavigation { get; set; }
}
In the controller section, I have an action that is suppose to list the title, actors, and director data.
public IActionResult ListAllMovies()
{
var movies = context.Movies.Include("MovieInfoes").ToList();
foreach (var movie in movies)
{
string x = movie.MovieInfoes.Actors;
}
return View(movies);
}
For some reason, it is crashing after it iterates 19 records (I'm trying to iterate thru 300+ records). I get an error saying "NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object".
Note: I've tried with lazy loading and eager loading, and both ways result in same error.
You're likely attempting to access movie.MovieInfoes.Actors with an instance of movie that has a null MovieInfoes reference.
Try accessing Actors with a null-conditional operator by changing string x = movie.MovieInfoes.Actors; to string x = movie?.MovieInfoes?.Actors;
I am building a Web API and have two models: Task and Feature:
public class Feature
{
[Key]
public long FeatureId { get; set; }
public string Analyst_comment { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<User_Task> Tasks { get; set; }
public Feature()
{
}
}
public class User_Task
{
[Key]
public long TaskId { get; set; }
public string What { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("FeatureId")]
public long? FeatureId { get; set; }
public User_Task()
{
}
}
I create Tasks first and then create a Feature that combines few of them. Task creation is successful, however while creating a Feature with existing Tasks, my controller throws an error saying the task already exists:
My FeatureController has following method:
//Create
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Create([FromBody] Feature item)
{
if (item == null)
{
return BadRequest();
}
** It basically expects that I am creating a Feature with brand new tasks, so I guess I will need some logic here to tell EF Core that incoming tasks with this feature already exist **
_featureRepository.Add(item);
return CreatedAtRoute("GetFeature", new { id = item.FeatureId }, item);
}
How to tell EF core that incoming Feature has Tasks that already exist and it just needs to update the references instead of creating new ones?
My context:
public class WebAPIDataContext : DbContext
{
public WebAPIDataContext(DbContextOptions<WebAPIDataContext> options)
: base(options)
{
}
public DbSet<User_Task> User_Tasks { get; set; }
public DbSet<Feature> Features { get; set; }
}
And repo:
public void Add(Feature item)
{
_context.Features.Add(item);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
When calling Add on a DBSet with a model that was not loaded from EF, it thinks it is untracked and will always assume it is new.
Instead, you need to load the existing record from the dbcontext and map the properties from the data passed into the API to the existing record. Typically that is a manual map from parameter object to domain. Then if you return an object back, you would map that new domain object to a DTO. You can use services like AutoMapper to map the domain to a DTO. When you're done mapping, you only need to call SaveChanges.
Generally speaking, loading the record and mapping the fields is a good thing for the security of your API. You wouldn't want to assume that the passed in data is pristine and honest. When you give the calling code access to all the properties of the entity, you may not be expecting them to change all the fields, and some of those fields could be sensitive.
I keep getting error when I try to access a model from an edit or details action.
The model backing the 'InjuriesContext' context has changed since the
database was created. Consider using Code First Migrations to update
the database (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=238269).
First I tried adding a migration even though I was sure I hadn't changed anything. Still recieved the same error after an update-database.
Then I removed all the migrations and the database and started a clean database with an inital migration and update. Same error. Nothing was changed.
Model is:
public class InjuriesContext : DbContext
{
public InjuriesContext()
: base("DBCon")
{
}
public DbSet<Patient> Patients { get; set; }
public DbSet<Injury> Injuries { get; set; }
}
public class Injury
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
public int PatientId { get; set; }
}
Here is controller --
public ActionResult Edit(int id = 0)
{
Injury injury = db.Injuries.Find(id);
if (injury == null)
{
return HttpNotFound();
}
return View(injury);
}
It errors on the injuries.find. I do not have any injuries entered so I expect it to return a 404 like my other controllers but it doesn't like something about this. The only difference between this and my other models is the y to ies for plural. Does Entity Framework not handle this?
There should not be any plural restriction, as you defined everything clearly in your classes anyway.
Have you created the Injuries table?
I belive the table Injury will get created automatically. the variable injury might be a bit close, but I have to test this myself.
Rather try:
public class Injury
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
[Required]
public string Type { get; set; }
[Required]
public int PatientId { get; set; }
}
private InjuriesContext db = new InjuriesContext();
Injury objInjury = db.Injuries.Find(id);
if (objInjury == null)
{
return HttpNotFound();
}
return View(objInjury);
Hope this helps
It turns out my issue was with multiple contexts. I thought you had to create a separate context for each model class. Apparently Entity Framework needs one context. I went through and created a class for my context and put all my DBsets in that class.
public class ProjContexts : DbContext
{
public ProjContexts()
: base("ProjDBCon")
{
}
public DbSet<Patient> Patients { get; set; }
public DbSet<PreHosp> PreHosps { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserProfile> UserProfiles { get; set; }
public DbSet<Injury> Injuries { get; set; }
}
}
Then I removed all the migrations as per this post and enabled the migrations again did an add migration and update then I got the expected result.
Bottom Line--- Don't have multiple context classes in your project. Not sure if this is possible but after changing the above everything is working as expected. Not sure why it was working when I had two separate contexts and added the third? Maybe because they had foreign keys with one another?
I'm currently working on and ASP.NET MVC application in which I have a User entity like follows:
public class User
{
public virtual int Id { get; protected set; }
public virtual string Name { get; protected set; }
public virtual string Role { get; protected set; }
public virtual Location Location { get; protected set; }
}
Where location is just as straightforward:
public class Location
{
public virtual string Id { get; protected set; }
public virtual string Building { get; protected set; }
public virtual string City { get; protected set; }
public virtual string Region { get; protected set; }
}
My complication arises because I want to populate the User from Active Directory and not the database. Additionally, several classes persisted to the database reference a user as a property. I've got an ADUserRepository for retrieval, but I don't know how to integrate these Users into my object graph when the rest is managed by NHibernate.
Is there a way for NHibernate to persist just an id for a User without it being a foreign key to a Users table? Can I map it as a component to accomplish this? I've also looked at implementing IUserType to make the translation. That way it would map to a simple field and ADUserRepository could be put in the chain to resolve the stored Id. Or am I trying to hack something that's not really feasible? This is my first time around with NHibernate so I appreciate any insight or solutions you can give. Thanks.
Update
It appears my best solution on this will be to map the User with an IUserType and inject (preferably with StructureMap) a service for populating the object before its returned. Framed in that light there are a couple of questions here that deal with the topic mostly suggesting the need for a custom ByteCodeProvider. Will I still need to do this in order for IUserType to take a parameterized constructor or do the comments here: NHibernate.ByteCode.LinFu.dll For NHibernate 3.2 make a difference?
using a Usertype to convert user to id and back
public class SomeClass
{
public virtual string Id { get; protected set; }
public virtual User User { get; protected set; }
}
// in FluentMapping (you have to translate if you want to use mapping by code)
public SomeClassMap()
{
Map(x => x.User).Column("user_id").CustomType<UserType>();
}
public class UserType : IUserType
{
void NullSafeSet(...)
{
NHibernateUtil.Int32.NullSafeSet(cmd, ((User)value).Id, index);
}
void NullSafeGet(...)
{
int id = (int)NHibernateUtil.Int32.NullSafeGet(cmd, ((User)value).Id, index);
var userrepository = GetItFromSomeWhere();
return userrepository.FindById(id);
}
}
I am struggling with this issue:
I have a list of NHibernate objects called "Project". These objects contain a lazy - loaded list of "Branches". I am trying to pass a list of Projects to a WCF service so I am using AutoMapper to transform them to flat objects.
The problem is that even though the destination objects called "ProjectContract" does not contain a list of Branches, Automapper still invokes this collection and a lot of queries are made to the database because NHibernate fires the lazy - loading and loads the Branches collection for each project.
Here are the classes and the mapping:
public class Project
{
public virtual int ID
{
get;
set;
}
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Branch> Branches { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class ProjectContract
{
[DataMember]
public virtual int ID
{
get;
set;
}
[DataMember]
public virtual string Name { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public virtual string Description { get; set; }
}
public class ProjectMappings : Profile
{
protected override void Configure()
{
Mapper.CreateMap<Project, ProjectContract>();
}
}
My question is: Is there a way to tell AutoMapper to not touch the "Branches" collection because I don't care about it and that is a proxy that will trigger many database calls?
I temporarily fixed this with MaxDepth(0), but there are other entities where I have collections that I want to transfer, and collections that I don't want to be touched, like this one. In that case, MaxDepth(0) will not work.
Thank you,
Cosmin
Yes, The AutoMapper Ignore function.
Mapper.CreateMap<Source, Destination>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.SomeValuefff, opt => opt.Ignore());