I want to delete a record from the DB that hasn't been retrieved from a breeze query. The entity hasn't been retrieved so it's not in the cache, but I know the KEY of the record from another operation. Here's what I've tried:
create a new entity from the manager:
manager.createEntity(entityNames.book);
setting the ID :
bookToDelete().bookID(1); // bookToDelete is a ko observable from step 1
updating the state:
bookToDelete().entityAspect.setDeleted();
When I save changes, this transaction is not included in the JSON
You almost have it. Calling entityAspect.setDeleted on an 'Added' entity moves it directly to a 'Detached' state, which in effect removes it from the EntityManager, and hence it cannot be saved. This is deliberate. It handles the case where you create an entity and later delete it. In this case, there is no entity to save.
So, in your case, you have to make the entity either 'Modified' or 'Unchanged' before you call entityAspect.setDeleted. You can do this by either calling entityAspect.setUnchanged or entityAspect.setModified before calling entityAspect.setDeleted or you can call entityAspect.acceptChanges.
Note that you will also have to insure that the 'clone' entity passes validation and if you have a concurrency field on the entity, you will need to set this appropriately as well.
UPDATE Dec 7th
You can create the book entity in the marked-for-delete state in a single step as shown:
var book = manager.createEntity(entityNames.book,
{ BookID: 1 }, // use initializer to set the key
breeze.EntityState.Deleted); // creates the entity in the Deleted state
Be sure to initialize it with all other properties that are necessary for the entity to pass validation and optimistic concurrency checks on the server.
No problem if you don't have these checks. Not sure how you'd get those values without querying the server if you did have such checks.
got it. cant delete entity while still in added state. I first setModified. then setdeleted. didnt see any side affects.
Related
I am trying get a record updated from database with QueryOver.
My code initially creates an entity and saves in database, then the same record is updated on database externally( from other program, manually or the same program running in other machine), and when I call queryOver filtering by the field changed, the query gets the record but without latest changes.
This is my code:
//create the entity and save in database
MyEntity myEntity = CreateDummyEntity();
myEntity.Name = "new_name";
MyService.SaveEntity(myEntity);
// now the entity is updated externally changing the name property with the
// "modified_name" value (for example manually in TOAD, SQL Server,etc..)
//get the entity with QueryOver
var result = NhibernateHelper.Session
.QueryOver<MyEntity>()
.Where(param => param.Name == "modified_name")
.List<T>();
The previous statement gets a collection with only one record(good), BUT with the name property established with the old value instead of "modified_name".
How I can fix this behaviour? First Level cache is disturbing me? The same problem occurs with
CreateCriteria<T>();
The session in my NhibernateHelper is not being closed in any moment due application framework requirements, only are created transactions for each commit associated to a session.Save().
If I open a new session to execute the query evidently I get the latest changes from database, but this approach is not allowed by design requirement.
Also I have checked in the NHibernate SQL output that a select with a WHERE clause is being executed (therefore Nhibernate hits the database) but don´t updates the returned object!!!!
UPDATE
Here's the code in SaveEntity after to call session.Save: A call to Commit method is done
public virtual void Commit()
{
try
{
this.session.Flush();
this.transaction.Commit();
}
catch
{
this.transaction.Rollback();
throw;
}
finally
{
this.transaction = this.session.BeginTransaction();
}
}
The SQL generated by NHibernate for SaveEntity:
NHibernate: INSERT INTO MYCOMPANY.MYENTITY (NAME) VALUES (:p0);:p0 = 'new_name'.
The SQL generated by NHibernate for QueryOver:
NHibernate: SELECT this_.NAME as NAME26_0_
FROM MYCOMPANY.MYENTITY this_
WHERE this_.NAME = :p0;:p0 = 'modified_name' [Type: String (0)].
Queries has been modified due to company confidential policies.
Help very appreciated.
As far as I know, you have several options :
have your Session as a IStatelessSession, by calling sessionFactory.OpenStatelesSession() instead of sessionFactory.OpenSession()
perform Session.Evict(myEntity) after persisting an entity in DB
perform Session.Clear() before your QueryOver
set the CacheMode of your Session to Ignore, Put or Refresh before your QueryOver (never tested that)
I guess the choice will depend on the usage you have of your long running sessions ( which, IMHO, seem to bring more problems than solutions )
Calling session.Save(myEntity) does not cause the changes to be persisted to the DB immediately*. These changes are persisted when session.Flush() is called either by the framework itself or by yourself. More information about flushing and when it is invoked can be found on this question and the nhibernate documentation about flushing.
Also performing a query will not cause the first level cache to be hit. This is because the first level cache only works with Get and Load, i.e. session.Get<MyEntity>(1) would hit the first level cache if MyEntity with an id of 1 had already been previously loaded, whereas session.QueryOver<MyEntity>().Where(x => x.id == 1) would not.
Further information about NHibernate's caching functionality can be found in this post by Ayende Rahien.
In summary you have two options:
Use a transaction within the SaveEntity method, i.e.
using (var transaction = Helper.Session.BeginTransaction())
{
Helper.Session.Save(myEntity);
transaction.Commit();
}
Call session.Flush() within the SaveEntity method, i.e.
Helper.Session.Save(myEntity);
Helper.Session.Flush();
The first option is the best in pretty much all scenarios.
*The only exception I know to this rule is when using Identity as the id generator type.
try changing your last query to:
var result = NhibernateHelper.Session
.QueryOver<MyEntity>()
.CacheMode(CacheMode.Refresh)
.Where(param => param.Name == "modified_name")
if that still doesn't work, try add this after the query:
NhibernateHelper.Session.Refresh(result);
After search and search and think and think.... I´ve found the solution.
The fix: It consist in open a new session, call QueryOver<T>() in this session and the data is succesfully refreshed. If you get child collections not initialized you can call HibernateUtil.Initialize(entity) or sets lazy="false" in your mappings. Take special care about lazy="false" in large collections, because you can get a poor performance. To fix this problem(performance problem loading large collections), set lazy="true" in your collection mappings and call the mentioned method HibernateUtil.Initialize(entity) of the affected collection to get child records from database; for example, you can get all records from a table, and if you need access to all child records of a specific entity, call HibernateUtil.Initialize(collection) only for the interested objects.
Note: as #martin ernst says, the update problem can be a bug in hibernate and my solution is only a temporal fix, and must be solved in hibernate.
People here do not want to call Session.Clear() since it is too strong.
On the other hand, Session.Evict() may seem un-applicable when the objects are not known beforehand.
Actually it is still usable.
You need to first retrieve the cached objects using the query, then call Evict() on them. And then again retrieve fresh objects calling the same query again.
This approach is slightly inefficient in case the object was not cached to begin with - since then there would be actually two "fresh" queries - but there seems to be not much to do about that shortcoming...
By the way, Evict() accepts null argument too without exceptions - this is useful in case the queried object is actually not present in the DB.
var cachedObjects = NhibernateHelper.Session
.QueryOver<MyEntity>()
.Where(param => param.Name == "modified_name")
.List<T>();
foreach (var obj in cachedObjects)
NhibernateHelper.Session.Evict(obj);
var freshObjects = NhibernateHelper.Session
.QueryOver<MyEntity>()
.Where(param => param.Name == "modified_name")
.List<T>()
I'm getting something very similar, and have tried debugging NHibernate.
In my scenario, the session creates an object with a couple children in a related collection (cascade:all), and then calls ISession.Flush().
The records are written into the DB, and the session needs to continue without closing. Meanwhile, another two child records are written into the DB and committed.
Once the original session then attempts to re-load the graph using QueryOver with JoinAlias, the SQL statement generated looks perfectly fine, and the rows are being returned correctly, however the collection that should receive these new children is found to have already been initialized within the session (as it should be), and based on that NH decides for some reason to completely ignore the respective rows.
I think NH makes an invalid assumption here that if the collection is already marked "Initialized" it does not need to be re-loaded from the query.
It would be great if someone more familiar with NHibernate internals could chime in on this.
My domain objects have a "CreateDate" and "ModidfyDate" members (DateTime).
When a user update a domain object (Asp.Net MVC) my view model does not hold these values. (It's to be set in my repository "Create" and "Update" methods)
So when I Update an object, I do not have the "CreateDate" available and therefore the Update method will fail.
I seems to have 2 options, and I don't like either:
1) Have my viewmodel tag along the "CreateDate" property (hidden field in form) so I have the original CreateDate available.
2) Or, in my "Update" repository method, first get the original record from the database and set the object I'm about to update's CreateDate member (an unnecessary call to the db)
What is the "normal" way to work with this?
A nice way to handle CreateDate and ModifyDate would be by using NHibernate's event listeners.
Here are some samples on how to create simple auditing using IPreInsertEventListener and IPreUpdateEventListener:
http://ayende.com/blog/3987/nhibernate-ipreupdateeventlistener-ipreinserteventlistener
http://nhforge.org/wikis/howtonh/creating-an-audit-log-using-nhibernate-events.aspx
On a side note, you shouldn't have problems with CreateDate on your Update method. How does your Update method look like?
The usual workflow is to get your view model in POST ActionMethod, load the entity object from the database using NHibernate's ISession, or your custom repository and then map your properties from the view model to the entity, either by hand, or using a tool like AutoMapper. Properties like CreateDate should be ignored in the viewmodel to entity mapping.
I used SQL-queries-based database access level for a long time. But now I decided to use ORM Doctrine2. At this moment I have one conceptual misunderstanding of entities workflow.
Best described by example:
try {
$user = $entityManager->find('User', 1);
$user->setName('New name');
$entityManager->flush();
}
catch (...)
{
// !we are here: changes failed and $user-row in DB was not updated
}
// ...
$user = $entityManager->find('User', 1);
$user->setOther('Other');
$entityManager->flush(); // <- in this request both [other] and [name] fields will be updated to DB, but only [other] update expected
In first code block I fetched $user object. Changed [name] and tried to save it, but failed. In the second block (unrelated to the first) I fetched $user object again. But ORM returned link to the same object as the first time. So this object has already changed [name] property. In the last line of second block I wanted to save just [other] filed, but both [other] and [name] will be updated.
What is the right way to resolve this situation?
This is by design.
The entity manager ensures that you always get the same entity back for a given id. After all, that's what identity means. There can only be a single, unique, user with id 1.
If you want to "refresh" an entity from the database, EntityManager::refresh() will do that for you. From the docs:
Refreshes the persistent state of an entity from the database, overriding any local changes that have not yet been persisted.
You must execute command: $entityManager->detach($userEntity); . The changes then will not reflected in the database after you call flush. Others entities will work.
Ok, each and every time I get into this situation, I struggle back and forth until I find a way to solve it (and that is usually not the way I would have liked to solve it).
What I'm talking about is disconnected entities in EF that should update existing entities in the database.
I'll give an example of my problem here (this example is the last time I got into this problem that caused me to write this question).
I have a WCF service that uses Entity Framework as well. The other program that have added a service reference to my service have gotten proxy versions of the Entities as normal.
The case is that the consumer of the service now construct a object of this proxy class, and call the method UpdateEntity on the WCF service. This entity has a foreign key to another type of entities, and the primary key of the entity I want to link this new entity to is also sent as a parameter to this method. In this case, I want the entity with the same primary key in the database to be updated. It seems simple enough right?
My method looks something like this now:
public bool ChangeEntity(MyEntity entity, int otherTableForignKey)
{
//first I verify that the entity to update exist in the system
var entitytochange = entityContext.MyEntities.FirstOrDefault(e => e.Name == entity.Name);
if (systemtochange == null) return false;
try
{
entity.ForignEntity = entityContext.ForeignEntities.FirstOrDefault(f => f.Key == otherTableForignKey);
//code for updating the entity should go here, but I'm nor sure what
entityContext.SaveChanges();
return true;
}
catch (Exception exc)
{
return false;
}
}
I tried many different combinations of ApplyCurrentValues, Attach, setting ObjectState to Modified and so on, but I get either the error message that I can't add a new entity with the same key as an existing entity, that the object state of the new object can't be Added and so on.
So my question is: What is the best way to do this without writing code that looks like a big hack.
The only way I got this working now was to just set the properties of entitytochange manually with the properties of entity, but it is a bad solution since any added properties to MyEntity will break the code if I don't remember to add code in this method as well, and it seems there really should be another way that is better.
EDIT
When I put entityContext.MyEntities.ApplyCurrentValues(entity); where my comment is put above, I get the following exception on this line:
The existing object in the ObjectContext is in the Added state. Changes can only be applied when the existing object is in an unchanged or modified state.
However, if I remove this line above entity.ForignEntity = entityContext.ForeignEntities.FirstOrDefault(f => f.Key == otherTableForignKey); then the ApplyCurrentValues works without any problems.
Why would me setting the ForeignEntity of the object set it to Added state? So it seems that setting a Property on the Detached entity, attaches it to the context with a state of added?
I'm developing a WCF Data Service with self tracking entities and I want to prevent clients from inserting duplicated content. Whenever they POST data without providing a value for the data key, I have to execute some logic to determine whether that data is already present inside my database or not. I've written a Change interceptor like this:
[ChangeInterceptor("MyEntity")]
public void OnChangeEntity(MyEntity item, UpdateOperations operations){
if (operations == UpdateOperations.Add)
{
// Here I search the database to see if a matching record exists.
// If a record is found, I'd like to use its ID and basically change an insertion
// into an update.
item.EntityID = existingEntityID;
item.MarkAsModified();
}
}
However, this is not working. The existingEntityID is ignored and, as a result, the record is always inserted, never updated. Is it even possible to do? Thanks in advance.
Hooray! I managed to do it.
item.EntityID = existingEntityID;
this.CurrentDataSource.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(item, EntityState.Modified);
I had to change the object state elsewhere, ie. by calling .ChangeObjectState of the ObjectStateManager, which is a property of the underlying EntityContext. I was mislead by the .MarkAsModified() method which, at this point, I'm not sure what it does.