I'm new to NHibernate and was assigned to a task where I have to change a value of an entity property and then compare if this new value (cached) is different from the actual value stored on the DB. However, every attempt to retrieve this value from the DB resulted in the cached value. As I said, I'm new to NHibernate, maybe this is something easy to do and obviously could be done with plain ADO.NET, but the client demands that we use NHibernate for every access to the DB. In order to make things clearer, those were my "successful" attempts (ie, no errors):
1
DetachedCriteria criteria = DetachedCriteria.For<User>()
.SetProjection(Projections.Distinct(Projections.Property(UserField.JobLoad)))
.Add(Expression.Eq(UserField.Id, userid));
return GetByDetachedCriteria(criteria)[0].Id; //this is the value I want
2
var JobLoadId = DetachedCriteria.For<User>()
.SetProjection(Projections.Distinct(Projections.Property(UserField.JobLoad)))
.Add(Expression.Eq(UserField.Id, userid));
ICriteria criteria = JobLoadId.GetExecutableCriteria(NHibernateSession);
var ids = criteria.List();
return ((JobLoad)ids[0]).Id;
Hope I made myself clear, sometimes is hard to explain a problem when even you don't quite understand the underlying framework.
Edit: Of course, this is a method body.
Edit 2: I found out that it doesn't work properly for the method call is inside a transaction context. If I remove the transaction, it works fine, but I need it to be in this context.
I do that opening a new stateless session for geting the actual object in the database:
User databaseuser;
using (IStatelessSession session = SessionFactory.OpenStatelessSession())
{
databaseuser = db.get<User>("id");
}
//do your checks
Within a session, NHibernate will return the same object from its Level-1 Cache (aka Identity Map). If you need to see the current value in the database, you can open a new session and load the object in that session.
I would do it like this:
public class MyObject : Entity
{
private readonly string myField;
public string MyProperty
{
get { return myField; }
set
{
if (value != myField)
{
myField = value;
DoWhateverYouNeedToDoWhenItIsChanged();
}
}
}
}
googles nhforge
http://nhibernate.info/doc/howto/various/finding-dirty-properties-in-nhibernate.html
This may be able to help you.
Related
I was writing tests using SQLite in-memory database with XUnit and ASP.NET Core 3.1 and found strange behavior.
Lets say that we have User model and we want to change property IsActive to false:
var u = new User {Id = Guid.NewGuid(), IsActive = true};
_db.Users.Add(u);
_db.SaveChanges();
u.IsActive = false;
// Returns false
var isActive = _db.Users.Single(x => x.Id == u.Id).IsActive;
// Returns true
var isActiveNoTracking = _db.Users.AsNoTracking().Single(x => x.Id == u.Id).IsActive;
// Fails.
Assert.Equal(isActive, isActiveNoTracking);
I get different result depending if AsNoTracking() is called or not. Why is this happening? Isn't AsNoTracking() supposed to stop tracking changes made on fetched object, not to mess with data that was already changed?
If I call SaveChanges() after changing the property then it is all good (as expected):
var u = new User {Id = Guid.NewGuid(), IsActive = true};
_db.Users.Add(u);
_db.SaveChanges();
u.IsActive = false;
_db.SaveChanges();
// Returns false
var isActive = _db.Users.Single(x => x.Id == u.Id).IsActive;
// Returns false
var isActiveNoTracking = _db.Users.AsNoTracking().Single(x => x.Id == u.Id).IsActive;
// Success.
Assert.Equal(isActive, isActiveNoTracking);
So I am confused, I'm not sure when SQLite in-memory actually commits changes. Sometimes you can fetch changes from db without calling SaveChanges() but sometimes you cannot.
Here is code related to db
public class SqliteInMemoryAppDbContext : AppDbContext
{
public SqliteInMemoryAppDbContext(IConfiguration configuration) : base(configuration)
{
}
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder options)
{
var connection = new SqliteConnection("DataSource=:memory:");
connection.Open();
options.UseSqlite(connection);
}
}
// I create db context for each test like this and dispose it after each test.
var _db = new SqliteInMemoryAppDbContext(null);
_db.Database.EnsureDeleted();
_db.Database.EnsureCreated();
So I am confused, I'm not sure when SQLite in-memory actually commits changes. Sometimes you can fetch changes from db without calling SaveChanges() but sometimes you cannot.
This is impossible. In order for something to be saved to the DB you need to call SaveChanges. What happens here is that you see local objects and you assume that they are stored in your DB. I generally suggest that you use a a DB query tool to learn how it works because it can be difficult at first.
Entity Framework has some local objects that it stores. For example at your first query.
// returns true, because it checks the db due to no tracking
_db.Users.AsNoTracking().Where(x => x.IsActive).OrderBy(x=>x.Username).ToList()[0].IsActive
// returns false, it finds the local reference
_db.Users.Where(x => x.IsActive).OrderBy(x=>x.Username).ToList()[0].IsActive
As you can see from the comments above it has different behavior based on the commands. It's not about when changes are saved to the db. This happens only if you call SaveChanges. What you are confused is for when the 'queries' you write with EF look at the DB or locally.
Generally for SQL at least I like to work with SQL profiler to see what queries EF sends to the Database. For example in your case you will have a query with where and order by send to the db.
EDIT:
About how to understand when the db is called or not i suggest reading here.
To summarize AsNoTracking always creates the new entity which means that it will look in the db for it. Instead the other commands in your example first look locally for the object.
I am using criteria to query the database based on the unique key. But I am coming through a weird scenario. After two or three queries, it starts giving me timeout expired error.
using (NHibernate.ISession session = m_SessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
using (ITransaction transacion = session.BeginTransaction())
{
if (cashActivity.ActivityState == ApplicationConstants.TaxLotState.Deleted || cashActivity.ActivityState == ApplicationConstants.TaxLotState.Updated)
{
IList<CashActivity> lsCActivity = RetrieveEquals<CashActivity>("UniqueKey",cashActivity.UniqueKey);
if (lsCActivity != null && lsCActivity.Count > 0)
cashActivity.CashActivityID = lsCActivity[0].CashActivityID;
}
if (cashActivity.ActivityState == ApplicationConstants.TaxLotState.Deleted)
{
session.Delete(cashActivity);
}
else
session.SaveOrUpdate(cashActivity);
}
}
}
public IList<T> RetrieveEquals<T>(string propertyName, object propertyValue)
{
using (Isession session = m_SessionFactory.OpenSession())
{
Icriteria criteria = session.CreateCriteria(typeof(T));
criteria.Add(Restrictions.Eq(propertyName, PropertyValue));
IList<T> matchingObjects = criteria.List<T>();
return matchingObjects;
}
}
I made changes in the code and start using StateLess Session but that change only reduces the frequency of timeout error.
After decugging , I found IList matchingObjects = criteria.List(); is cause of the exception. But this is only returning only one value, so it should not result timeout error since table also doesnt contain more than 100 rows as of now. Any Suggestions??
Unless you have wrapped NHibernate's ISessionFactory in something else, each call to OpenSession() will yield a new session. So the above code involves multiple sessions and it isn't clear if this is required.
Theoretically, a query on the session in RetrieveEquals() could block because of locks taken on the connection used in the calling method. But given the code as shown I can't see anything to prove this.
The calling method first updates a property of cashActivity, then in some cases goes on to delete the object. And there is no Commit(). This seems strange - is this really the used code or might there be a copy/paste error?
You also say "after two or three queries"... do you imply that there is a loop somewhere which isn't shown?
More specifically in Raven DB, I want to create a generic method with a signature like;
public void Clear<T>() {...
Then have Raven DB clear all documents of the given type.
I understand from other posts by Ayende to similar questions that you'd need an index in place to do this as a batch.
I think this would involve creating an index that maps each document type - this seems like a lot of work.
Does anyone know an efficient way of creating a method like the above that will do a set delete directly in the database?
I assume you want to do this from the .NET client. If so, use the standard DocumentsByEntityName index:
var indexQuery = new IndexQuery { Query = "Tag:" + collectionName };
session.Advanced.DocumentStore.DatabaseCommands.DeleteByIndex(
"Raven/DocumentsByEntityName",
indexQuery,
new BulkOperationOptions { AllowStale = true });
var hilo = session.Advanced.DocumentStore.DatabaseCommands.Get("Raven/Hilo/", collectionName);
if (hilo != null) {
session.Advanced.DocumentStore.DatabaseCommands.Delete(hilo.Key, hilo.Etag);
}
Where collectionName is the actual name of your collection.
The first operation deletes the items. The second deletes the HiLo file.
Also check out the official documentation - How to delete or update documents using index.
After much experimentation I found the answer to be quite simple, although far from obvious;
public void Clear<T>()
{
session.Advanced.DocumentStore.DatabaseCommands.PutIndex(indexName, new IndexDefinitionBuilder<T>
{
Map = documents => documents.Select(entity => new {})
});
session.Advanced.DatabaseCommands.DeleteByIndex(indexName, new IndexQuery());
}
Of course you almost certainly wouldn't define your index and do your delete in one go, I've put this as a single method for the sake of brevity.
My own implementation defines the indexes on application start as recommended by the documentation.
If you wanted to use this approach to actually index a property of T then you would need to constrain T. For example if I have an IEntity that all my document classes inherit from and this class specifies a property Id. Then a 'where T : IEntity' would allow you to use that property in the index.
It's been said in other places, but it's also worth noting that once you define a static index Raven will probably use it, this can cause your queries to seemingly not return data that you've inserted:
RavenDB Saving to disk query
I had this problem as well and this is the solution that worked for me. I'm only working in a test project, so this might be slow for a bigger db, but Ryan's answer didn't work for me.
public static void ClearDocuments<T>(this IDocumentSession session)
{
var objects = session.Query<T>().ToList();
while (objects.Any())
{
foreach (var obj in objects)
{
session.Delete(obj);
}
session.SaveChanges();
objects = session.Query<T>().ToList();
}
}
You can do that using:
http://blog.orangelightning.co.uk/?p=105
It's more like theoretical question.
I have one table to hold dictionary items, and the next one for hold Users data.
User table contains a lot reference collumns of type many to one indicated on dictionary item table. It's looks like:
public class User
{
public int Id;
public Dictionary Status;
public Dictionary Type;
public Dictionary OrganizationUnit;
......
}
I want retrieve all dictionary on startup of aplication, and then when i retrieved user and invoke reference property to dictionary the dictionary object should be taken from cache.
I know i can use a 2nd level cache in this scenario, but i'm interested about other solution. Is there any?
It's posible to make my custom type and said that: use my custom cache to retrieved value of dictionary??
Across multiple session the second level cache is the best answer, the only other solutions to populate objects from a cache without using second level cache i can think of would be to use an onLoad interceptor (and simply leave your dictionaries unmapped) or do it manually somewhere in your application.
But why don't you want to use the seocondlevel cache? If your views on caching is very different from the storages there are providers for in hibernate it is possible for you to implement your own provider?
Why not store it in the session? Just pull the record set one time and push it into session and retrieve it each time you want it. I do something similar for other stuff and I believe my method should work for you. In my code I have a session manager that I call directly from any piece of code needs the session values. I choose this method since I can query the results and I can manipulate the storage and retrieval methods. When relying on NHibernate to do the Caching for me, I don't have the granularity of control to cause specific record sets to only be available to specific sessions. I also find that NHibernate is not as efficient as using the session directly. When profiling the CPU and memory usage I find that this method is faster and uses a little less memory. If you want to do it on a site level instead of session, look into HttpContext.Current.Cache.
The following example works perfectly for storing and retrieving record sets:
// Set the session
SessionManager.User = (Some code to pull the user record with relationships. Set the fetch mode to eager for each relationship else you will just have broken references.)
// Get the session
User myUser = SessionManager.User;
public static class SessionManager
{
public static User User
{
get { return GetSession("MySessionUser") as User; }
set { SetSession("MySessionUser", value); }
}
private static object GetSession(string key)
{
// Fix Null reference error
if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current == null || System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session == null)
{
return null;
}
else
{
return System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session[key];
}
}
private static void SetSession(string key, object valueIn)
{
// Fix null reference error
if (System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session[key] == null)
{
System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session.Add(key, valueIn);
}
else
{
System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = valueIn;
}
}
}
In the dbml designer I've set Update Check to Never on all properties. But i still get an exception when doing Attach: "An attempt has been made to Attach or Add an entity that is not new, perhaps having been loaded from another DataContext. This is not supported." This approach seems to have worked for others on here, but there must be something I've missed.
using(TheDataContext dc = new TheDataContext())
{
test = dc.Members.FirstOrDefault(m => m.fltId == 1);
}
test.Name = "test2";
using(TheDataContext dc = new TheDataContext())
{
dc.Members.Attach(test, true);
dc.SubmitChanges();
}
The error message says exactly what is going wrong: You are trying to attach an object that has been loaded from another DataContext, in your case from another instance of the DataContext. Dont dispose your DataContext (at the end of the using statement it gets disposed) before you change values and submit the changes. This should work (all in one using statement). I just saw you want to attach the object again to the members collection, but it is already in there. No need to do that, this should work just as well:
using(TheDataContext dc = new TheDataContext())
{
var test = dc.Members.FirstOrDefault(m => m.fltId == 1);
test.Name = "test2";
dc.SubmitChanges();
}
Just change the value and submit the changes.
Latest Update:
(Removed all previous 3 updates)
My previous solution (removed it again from this post), found here is dangerous. I just read this on a MSDN article:
"Only call the Attach methods on new
or deserialized entities. The only way
for an entity to be detached from its
original data context is for it to be
serialized. If you try to attach an
undetached entity to a new data
context, and that entity still has
deferred loaders from its previous
data context, LINQ to SQL will thrown
an exception. An entity with deferred
loaders from two different data
contexts could cause unwanted results
when you perform insert, update, and
delete operations on that entity. For
more information about deferred
loaders, see Deferred versus Immediate
Loading (LINQ to SQL)."
Use this instead:
// Get the object the first time by some id
using(TheDataContext dc = new TheDataContext())
{
test = dc.Members.FirstOrDefault(m => m.fltId == 1);
}
// Somewhere else in the program
test.Name = "test2";
// Again somewhere else
using(TheDataContext dc = new TheDataContext())
{
// Get the db row with the id of the 'test' object
Member modifiedMember = new Member()
{
Id = test.Id,
Name = test.Name,
Field2 = test.Field2,
Field3 = test.Field3,
Field4 = test.Field4
};
dc.Members.Attach(modifiedMember, true);
dc.SubmitChanges();
}
After having copied the object, all references are detached, and all event handlers (deferred loading from db) are not connected to the new object. Just the value fields are copied to the new object, that can now be savely attached to the members table. Additionally you do not have to query the db for a second time with this solution.
It is possible to attach entities from another datacontext.
The only thing that needs to be added to code in the first post is this:
dc.DeferredLoadingEnabled = false
But this is a drawback since deferred loading is very useful. I read somewhere on this page that another solution would be to set the Update Check on all properties to Never. This text says the same: http://complexitykills.blogspot.com/2008/03/disconnected-linq-to-sql-tips-part-1.html
But I can't get it to work even after setting the Update Check to Never.
This is a function in my Repository class which I use to update entities
protected void Attach(TEntity entity)
{
try
{
_dataContext.GetTable<TEntity>().Attach(entity);
_dataContext.Refresh(RefreshMode.KeepCurrentValues, entity);
}
catch (DuplicateKeyException ex) //Data context knows about this entity so just update values
{
_dataContext.Refresh(RefreshMode.KeepCurrentValues, entity);
}
}
Where TEntity is your DB Class and depending on you setup you might just want to do
_dataContext.Attach(entity);