I am currently fixing an old Windows Applications and encountered NHibernate error. I've read and tried few things on the net but end up error.
Here is my code for the ISession:
Public ReadOnly Property session() As ISession
Get
If IsNothing(m_session) Then
m_session = Factory.InitConfiguration.OpenSession()
End If
Return m_session
End Get
End Property
Here is my code for the save button:
Try
session.BeginTransaction()
SetParent(x_object)
'session.clear()
session.Flush()
session.SaveOrUpdate(x_object)
session.Transaction.Commit()
compObj.IsNew = False
Return True
Catch ex As Exception
AppServices.ErrorMessage = ex.Message
session.Transaction.Rollback()
Return False
Finally
'TBA
End Try
So the problem start here, I have this date column as DateTime and AttachmentList.
The current code doesn't have any problem until the user key in the year less than 1753. However the code catch the error properly and display the message and when the user continue to fix the year-typo, it'll still catch the error (while at the watch I already get the new value) until the user close the application and reopened it.
However if I uncomment the session.clear(), it will do just fine, the user may fix their typos and continue to save record, but then when the user do the other action lets say attachment, it will get another error. The attachment action as below:
Add Attachment
Click Save button
Add new attachment
Click Save button
New Error.
So please advice me on what need to be done. I've tried merge, I've tried update,save, evict but end up error. I think my problem is how I arrange the session is the main source of the problem.
It looks like the code you have to handle tries to go on using a session having experienced a failed flush or transaction commit.
This is an anti-pattern. From NHibernate reference:
NHibernate use might lead to exceptions, usually HibernateException.
This exception can have a nested inner exception (the root cause), use
the InnerException property to access it.
If the ISession throws an exception you should immediately rollback
the transaction, call ISession.Close() and discard the ISession
instance. Certain methods of ISession will not leave the session in a
consistent state.
...
The following exception handling idiom shows the typical case in NHibernate applications:
using (ISession sess = factory.OpenSession())
using (ITransaction tx = sess.BeginTransaction())
{
// do some work
...
tx.Commit();
}
Or, when manually managing ADO.NET transactions:
ISession sess = factory.openSession();
try
{
// do some work
...
sess.Flush();
currentTransaction.Commit();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
currentTransaction.Rollback();
throw;
}
finally
{
sess.Close();
}
You must ensure the code does not try to go on using the session after an exception.
Furthermore, it looks like the session stay opened while awaiting user interaction: this is not a recommended pattern. A NHibernate session is normally short lived. Opening a session is cheap.
An usual pattern is to open it when starting to process an event from user input and close it before ending the event processing, in order to not leaving it opened while the user is gone taking a coffee.
Now you may have a hard time changing the application session management, especially if the application retains references to entities and expects them to be still bound to an opened session after having waited for user interaction.
If the choice of keeping the session opened between user interaction was done for "leveraging first level cache" (session entity cache), consider activating second level cache instead.
I've been working on this for about a day and a half now, and searched numberous blogs and help articles on the Web. I found several questions on SO related to this error, but I didn't think they quite applied to my situation (or in some cases, unfortunately, I couldn't understand them well enough to implement :P). I'm not sure I can describe this well enough for help... but here goes:
We have a .NET app to track our resources. There's an export function to copy a resource to the time tracking system and the billing system; this accesses a stored procedure that links to the time and billing databases.
I recently moved the billing system database to a new server (original server: Server 2003 SP2, SQL 2005; new server: Server 2008 R2, SQL 2008 R2). I have a Linked Server set up that points to the 2008 databases. I updated the stored procedure to point to the 2008 server, and then I got an error about MSDTC and RPC (http://www.safnet.com/writing/tech/archives/2007/06/server_myserver.html). I enabled 'rpc/rpc out' on the Linked Server and set MSDTC to allow Network Access (something like this: http://www.sqlwebpedia.com/content/msdtc-troubleshooting).
Now I'm getting the above, when I try to run the export function: "This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable." What seems odd to me is that when I just run the stored procedure (from SSMS), it says it completes successfully.
Has anyone seen this before? Have I missed something in the configuration? I keep going over the same pages, and the only thing I found was that I didn't reboot after making the MSDTC changes (mentioned in here: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/adodotnetdataproviders/thread/7172223f-acbe-4472-8cdf-feec80fd2e64/).
I can post part or all of the stored procedure, if it would help... please let me know.
I believe this error message is due to a "zombie transaction".
Look for possible areas where the transacton is being committed twice (or rolled back twice, or rolled back and committed, etc.). Does the .Net code commit the transaction after the SP has already committed it? Does the .Net code roll it back on encountering an error, then attempt to roll it back again in a catch (or finally) clause?
It's possible an error condition was never being hit on the old server, and thus the faulty "double rollback" code was never hit. Maybe now you have a situation where there is some configuration error on the new server, and now the faulty code is getting hit via exception handling.
Can you debug into the error code? Do you have a stack trace?
I had this recently after refactoring in a new connection manager. A new routine accepted a transaction so it could be run as part of a batch, problem was with a using block:
public IEnumerable<T> Query<T>(IDbTransaction transaction, string command, dynamic param = null)
{
using (transaction.Connection)
{
using (transaction)
{
return transaction.Connection.Query<T>(command, new DynamicParameters(param), transaction, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
}
}
It looks as though the outer using was closing the underlying connection thus any attempts to commit or rollback the transaction threw up the message "This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable."
I removed the usings added a covering test and the problem went away.
public IEnumerable<T> Query<T>(IDbTransaction transaction, string command, dynamic param = null)
{
return transaction.Connection.Query<T>(command, new DynamicParameters(param), transaction, commandType: CommandType.StoredProcedure);
}
Check for anything that might be closing the connection while inside the context of a transaction.
Had the exact same problem and just could not find the right solution.
Hope this helps somebody.
I have an .NET Core 3.1 WebApi with EF Core. Upon receiving multiple calls at the same time, the applications was trying to add and save changes to the database at the same time.
In my case the problem was that the table that the data would be saved in, did not have a primary key set.
Somehow EF Core missed when the migration was ran from the application that the ID in the model was supposed to be a primary key.
I found the problem by opening the SQL Profiler and seeing that all transactions was successfully submitted to the database (from the application) but only one new row was created. The profiler also showed that some type of deadlock was happening but I couldn't see much more in the trace logs of the profiler.
On further inspection I noticed that the primary key identifier was missing on the column "Id".
The exceptions I got from my application was:
This SqlTransaction has
completed; it is no longer usable.
and/or
An exception has been raised that is likely due to a transient
failure. Consider enabling transient error resiliency by adding
'EnableRetryOnFailure()' to the 'UseSqlServer' call.
I have the same problem. This error occurs because conection pooling. When exists two or more users acess the system the connetion pooling reuse a connetion and the transation too. If the first user execute commit ou rollback the transaction is no longe usable.
I have recently ran across similar situation. To debug in any VS IDE version, open exceptions from Debug (Ctrl + D, E) - check all checkboxes against the column "Thrown", and run the application in debug mode. I have realized that one of the tables was not imported properly in the new database, so internal Sql Exception was killing the connection, thus results into this error.
Gist of the story is, If Previously working code returns this error on a new database, this could be database schema missing issue, realize by above debugging tip,
Hope It Helps,
HydTechie
Also check for any long running processes executed from your .NET app against the DB. For example you may be calling a stored procedure or query which does not have enough time to finish which can show in your logs as:
Execution Timeout Expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to
completion of the operation or the server is not responding.
This SqlTransaction has completed; it is no longer usable.
Check the command timeout settings
Try to run a trace (profiler) and see what is happening on the DB side...
In my case the problem was that one of the queries included in the transaction was raising an exception, and even though the exception was "gracefully" handled, it still managed to roll back the entire transaction.
My pseudo-code was like:
var transaction = connection.BeginTransaction();
for(all the lines in a file)
{
try{
InsertLineInTable(); // INSERT statement might fail and throw an exception
}
catch {
// notify the user about the error on line x and continue
}
}
// Commit and Rollback will fail if one of the queries
// in InsertLineInTable threw an exception
if(CheckTableForErrors())
{
transaction.Commit();
}
else
{
transaction.Rollback();
}
Here is a way to detect Zombie transaction
SqlTransaction trans = connection.BeginTransaction();
//some db calls here
if (trans.Connection != null) //Detecting zombie transaction
{
trans.Commit();
}
Decompiling the SqlTransaction class, you will see the following
public SqlConnection Connection
{
get
{
if (this.IsZombied)
return (SqlConnection) null;
return this._connection;
}
}
I notice if the connection is closed, the transOP will become zombie, thus cannot Commit.
For my case, it is because I have the Commit() inside a finally block, while the connection was in the try block. This arrangement is causing the connection to be disposed and garbage collected. The solution was to put Commit inside the try block instead.
For what it's worth, I've run into this on what was previously working code. I had added SELECT statements in a trigger for debug testing and forgot to remove them. Entity Framework / MVC doesnt play nice when other stuff is output to the "grid". Make sure to check for any rogue queries and remove them.
In my case, I've some codes which need to execute after committing the transaction, at the same try-catch block. One of the codes threw
an error then try block handed over the error to its catch block which contains the transaction rollback.
It will show a similar error. For example, look at the code structure below :
SqlTransaction trans = null;
try{
trans = Con.BeginTransaction();
// your codes
trans.Commit();
//your codes having errors
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
trans.Rollback(); //transaction roll back
// error message
}
finally
{
// connection close
}
Hope it will help someone :)
I am trying to use NHibernate with legacy entities that are not mapped with NHibernate. On occasion this means that I need to manually flush NHibernate data to the database so that I don't receive foreign key exceptions when I try to connect the legacy entities with NHibernate-mapped entities.
A problem occurs when this takes place within a transaction that then needs to be rolled back. The data flushed from NHibernate does not rollback.
Is there anything I can do about this?
UPDATE
Still curious how to do this - I don't believe either of the answers given address the issue. I need to call Flush(). The question is, how do I rollback data that has been flushed?
check this: Force query execution without flush/commit
I seemed to have the same problem, i would flush and then i would rollback but some data would remain persisted in the database. However, there were some parts in my code that would call a commit, which cannot be rolled back. Consider the accepted answers' code snippet as the proper usage for transactions, flushes, rollbacks and commits and take into consideration that this pattern can be extended...
in a single unit of work (ie we consider a Request in a web application as a single unit of work and everything that happens in that request exists in a single transaction which onEndRequest is committed):
you call _sessionFactory.OpenSession(), _session.BeginTransaction(), _session.CommitTransaction() and _session.CloseSession() only once.
you can call _session.Flush() and _session.RollBackTransaction() as many times as you want, but Flush() is automatically called on Commit automatically. You may want to call a Flush when you need to make a query and ensure that the data fetched will not be stale.
Note that once a commit transaction is committed, all operations afterwards do not happen on that transaction. Instead NHibernate will create the necessary transaction under the hood (http://www.nhprof.com/Learn/Alerts/DoNotUseImplicitTransactions) in which point
you already have problems tracking consistency and possibly logical integrity
If you really must call commit in the middle of your unit of work it is strongly advised to create a new transaction at that point so you can manage it explicitly
What's even better is to try out Nested Transactions will allegedly allow partial commits; you can rollback the "root" transaction and all changes will be reverted. I haven't really tested this feature of .NET and SQL Server, although the nested transaction in the database itself leaves a lot to be desired and i don't know how exactly ADO.NET instruments this feature.
points 1 to 4 have been tested with all versions of NHibernate starting from 1.2.
For the sake of formatting I allow myself to update tolism7's answer here.
use using and forget about transaction.Dispose() - the transaction will automatically be Dispose'd of at the end of the using block.
throw - don't throw ex because it means throwing away your stacktrace (see this post where it states "When the .NET Framework executes this statement: throw ex; it throws away all the stack information above the current function.")
.
public void CommitChanges()
{
using (var transaction = Session.BeginTransaction()) // <-- open scope
try
{
// do something
transaction.Commit();
}
catch (HibernateException)
{
transaction.Rollback();
_session.Close();
_session.Dispose();
throw; // <-- this way the stacktrace stays intact!
}
}
A VB.NET version of this piece of code can be found here.
When using transactions with NHibernate try to avoid using the Session.Flush() and instead use the transaction.Commit() which it calls the session.flush() internally.
If during the Commit() an error occurs and the transaction needs to be rolled back this can be addressed like this.
public static void CommitChanges()
{
ITransaction transaction = Session.BeginTransaction();
try
{
transaction.Commit();
}
catch (HibernateException ex)
{
transaction.Rollback();
//close and dispose session here
throw ex;
}
finally
{
transaction.Dispose();
}
}
Now, if a manual call to flush() or a call to commit() goes through successfully there isn't a way to roll back the transaction using NHibernate mechanisms.
Especially when calling the transaction.Commit() command the AdoTransaction created by NHibernate is then disposed right after the Commit() finishes so you cannot access it in order to roll back.
The code sample above allows you to catch errors that happen during commit and then roll back the transaction that has started already.
Now instead of calling the transaction.Commit() in the sample above you call the session.Flush() in my tests no data are saved in the Database as the transaction is never commited.
I have no idea how your code looks like but if you are calling in a pattern, as the above the code sample shows, the transaction.commit() instead of the Session.Flush() it should give you a way to achieve what you want.
please help me resolve this problem:
There is an ambient MSMQ transaction. I'm trying to use new transaction for logging, but get next error while attempt to submit changes - "Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding." Here is code:
public static void SaveTransaction(InfoToLog info)
{
using (TransactionScope scope =
new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew))
{
using (TransactionLogDataContext transactionDC =
new TransactionLogDataContext())
{
transactionDC.MyInfo.InsertOnSubmit(info);
transactionDC.SubmitChanges();
}
scope.Complete();
}
}
Please help me.
Thx.
You could consider increasing the timeout or eliminating it all together.
Something like:
using(TransactionLogDataContext transactionDC = new TransactionLogDataContext())
{
transactionDC.CommandTimeout = 0; // No timeout.
}
Be careful
You said:
thank you. but this solution makes new question - if transaction scope was changed why submit operation becomes so time consuming? Database and application are on the same machine
That is because you are creating new DataContext right there:
TransactionLogDataContext transactionDC = new TransactionLogDataContext())
With new data context ADO.NET opens up new connection (even if connection strings are the same, unless you do some clever connection pooling).
Within transaction context when you try to work with more than 1 connection instances (which you just did)
ADO.NET automatically promotes transaction to a distributed transaction and will try to enlist it into MSDTC. Enlisting very first transaction per connection into MSDTC will take time (for me it takes 30+ seconds), consecutive transactions will be fast, however (in my case 60ms). Take a look at this http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?id=922430
What you can do is reuse transaction and connection string (if possible) when you create new DataContext.
TransactionLogDataContext tempDataContext =
new TransactionLogDataContext(ExistingDataContext.Transaction.Connection);
tempDataContext.Transaction = ExistingDataContext.Transaction;
Where ExistingDataContext is the one which started ambient transaction.
Or attemp to speed up your MS DTC.
Also do use SQL Profiler suggested by billb and look for SessionId between different commands (save and savelog in your case). If SessionId changes, you are in fact using 2 different connections and in that case will have to reuse transaction (if you don't want it to be promoted to MS DTC).
From my understanding NServiceBus executes the Handle method of an IMessageHandler within a transaction, if an exception propagates out of this method, then NServiceBus will ensure the message is put back on the message queue (up X amount of times before error queue) etc.. so we have an atomic operation so to speak.
Now when if I inside my NServiceBus Message Handle method I do something like this
using(var trans = session.BeginTransaction())
{
person.Age = 10;
session.Update<Person>(person);
trans.Commit()
}
using(var trans2 = session.BeginTransaction())
{
person.Age = 20;
session.Update<Person>(person);
// throw new ApplicationException("Oh no");
trans2.Commit()
}
What is the effect of this on the transaction scope?
Is trans1 now counted as a nested transaction in terms of its relationship with the Nservicebus transaction even though we have done nothing to marry them up? (if not how would one link onto the transaction of NServiceBus?
Looking at the second block (trans2), if I uncomment the throw statement, will the NServiceBus transaction then rollback trans1 as well? In basic scenarios, say I dump the above into a console app, then trans1 is independent, commit, flushed and won't rollback. I'm trying to clarify what happens now we sit in someone else's transaction like NServiceBus?
The above is just example code, im wouldnt be working directly with session, more like through a uow pattern.
If you mark your endpoint as transaction (.MsmqTransport().IsTransactional(true) or just AsA_Server) then the transactions will enlist into the one NServiceBus opened. What this means is that the commits you have inside your handler won't actually happen and the whole thing will either commit or rollback together - unless you specifically tell your transactions not to enlist in the ambient transaction.
Whether or not you work directly with the session or through a UoW, it looks like you want to do more than one for a given message - why? The message is already the natural UoW.