Develop Reference

Why is Entity Framework Core attempting to insert records into one of the tables from many to many relationships and NOT the join table?

Given the following set up where there are many Teams and there are many LeagueSessions. Each Team belongs to zero or more LeagueSessions but only ever one LeagueSession is active. LeagueSessions have many teams, and the teams will be repeated. Many-to-many relationship is established between Teams and LeagueSessions with a join table called TeamsSessions.
Team model looks like this:
public class Team
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public League League { get; set; }
public string LeagueID { get; set; }
public bool Selected { get; set; }
public ICollection<Match> Matches { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<TeamSession> TeamsSessions { get; set; }
}
Team model fluent api configuration:
`
public class TeamConfiguration
{
public TeamConfiguration(EntityTypeBuilder<Team> model)
{
// The data for this model will be generated inside ThePLeagueDataCore.DataBaseInitializer.DatabaseBaseInitializer.cs class
// When generating data for models in here, you have to provide it with an ID, and it became mildly problematic to consistently get
// a unique ID for all the teams. In ThePLeagueDataCore.DataBaseInitializer.DatabaseBaseInitializer.cs we can use dbContext to generate
// unique ids for us for each team.
model.HasOne(team => team.League)
.WithMany(league => league.Teams)
.HasForeignKey(team => team.LeagueID);
}
}
`
Each team belongs to a single League. League model looks like this:
`public class League
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Team> Teams { get; set; }
public bool Selected { get; set; }
public string SportTypeID { get; set; }
public SportType SportType { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<LeagueSessionSchedule> Sessions { get; set; }
}`
fluent API for the League:
`public LeagueConfiguration(EntityTypeBuilder<League> model)
{
model.HasOne(league => league.SportType)
.WithMany(sportType => sportType.Leagues)
.HasForeignKey(league => league.SportTypeID);
model.HasMany(league => league.Teams)
.WithOne(team => team.League)
.HasForeignKey(team => team.LeagueID);
model.HasData(leagues);
}`
SessionScheduleBase class looks like this:
public class SessionScheduleBase
{
public string LeagueID { get; set; }
public bool ByeWeeks { get; set; }
public long? NumberOfWeeks { get; set; }
public DateTime SessionStart { get; set; }
public DateTime SessionEnd { get; set; }
public ICollection<TeamSession> TeamsSessions { get; set; } = new Collection<TeamSession>();
public ICollection<GameDay> GamesDays { get; set; } = new Collection<GameDay>();
}
Note: LeagueSessionSchedule inherits from SessionScheduleBase
The TeamSession model looks like this:
`public class TeamSession
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string TeamId { get; set; }
public Team Team { get; set; }
public string LeagueSessionScheduleId { get; set; }
public LeagueSessionSchedule LeagueSessionSchedule { get; set; }
}`
I then configure the relationship with the fluent API like this:
`public TeamSessionConfiguration(EntityTypeBuilder<TeamSession> model)
{
model.HasKey(ts => new { ts.TeamId, ts.LeagueSessionScheduleId });
model.HasOne(ts => ts.Team)
.WithMany(t => t.TeamsSessions)
.HasForeignKey(ts => ts.TeamId);
model.HasOne(ts => ts.LeagueSessionSchedule)
.WithMany(s => s.TeamsSessions)
.HasForeignKey(ts => ts.LeagueSessionScheduleId);
}`
The problem arises whenever I attempt to insert a new LeagueSessionSchedule. The way I am adding a new TeamSession object onto the new LeagueSessionSchedule is like this:
`foreach (TeamSessionViewModel teamSession in newSchedule.TeamsSessions)
{
Team team = await this._teamRepository.GetByIdAsync(teamSession.TeamId, ct);
if(team != null)
{
TeamSession newTeamSession = new TeamSession()
{
Team = team,
LeagueSessionSchedule = leagueSessionSchedule
};
leagueSessionSchedule.TeamsSessions.Add(newTeamSession);
}
}`
Saving the new LeagueSessionSchedule code:
public async Task<LeagueSessionSchedule> AddScheduleAsync(LeagueSessionSchedule newLeagueSessionSchedule, CancellationToken ct = default)
{
this._dbContext.LeagueSessions.Add(newLeagueSessionSchedule);
await this._dbContext.SaveChangesAsync(ct);
return newLeagueSessionSchedule;
}
Saving the new LeagueSessionSchedule object throws an error by Entity Framework Core that it cannot INSERT a duplicate primary key value into the dbo.Teams table. I have no idea why its attempting to add to dbo.Teams table and not into TeamsSessions table.
ERROR:
INSERT INTO [LeagueSessions] ([Id], [Active], [ByeWeeks], [LeagueID], [NumberOfWeeks], [SessionEnd], [SessionStart])
VALUES (#p0, #p1, #p2, #p3, #p4, #p5, #p6);
INSERT INTO [Teams] ([Id], [Discriminator], [LeagueID], [Name], [Selected])
VALUES (#p7, #p8, #p9, #p10, #p11),
(#p12, #p13, #p14, #p15, #p16),
(#p17, #p18, #p19, #p20, #p21),
(#p22, #p23, #p24, #p25, #p26),
(#p27, #p28, #p29, #p30, #p31),
(#p32, #p33, #p34, #p35, #p36),
(#p37, #p38, #p39, #p40, #p41),
(#p42, #p43, #p44, #p45, #p46);
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException (0x80131904): Violation of PRIMARY KEY constraint 'PK_Teams'. Cannot insert duplicate key in object 'dbo.Teams'. The duplicate key value is (217e2e11-0603-4239-aab5-9e2f1d3ebc2c).
My goal is to create a new LeagueSessionSchedule object. Along with the creation of this object, I also have to create a new TeamSession entry to the join table (or not if join table is not necessary) to then be able to pick any given team and see what session it is currently a part of.
My entire PublishSchedule method is the following:
`
public async Task<bool> PublishSessionsSchedulesAsync(List<LeagueSessionScheduleViewModel> newLeagueSessionsSchedules, CancellationToken ct = default(CancellationToken))
{
List<LeagueSessionSchedule> leagueSessionOperations = new List<LeagueSessionSchedule>();
foreach (LeagueSessionScheduleViewModel newSchedule in newLeagueSessionsSchedules)
{
LeagueSessionSchedule leagueSessionSchedule = new LeagueSessionSchedule()
{
Active = newSchedule.Active,
LeagueID = newSchedule.LeagueID,
ByeWeeks = newSchedule.ByeWeeks,
NumberOfWeeks = newSchedule.NumberOfWeeks,
SessionStart = newSchedule.SessionStart,
SessionEnd = newSchedule.SessionEnd
};
// leagueSessionSchedule = await this._sessionScheduleRepository.AddScheduleAsync(leagueSessionSchedule, ct);
// create game day entry for all configured game days
foreach (GameDayViewModel gameDay in newSchedule.GamesDays)
{
GameDay newGameDay = new GameDay()
{
GamesDay = gameDay.GamesDay
};
// leagueSessionSchedule.GamesDays.Add(newGameDay);
// create game time entry for every game day
foreach (GameTimeViewModel gameTime in gameDay.GamesTimes)
{
GameTime newGameTime = new GameTime()
{
GamesTime = DateTimeOffset.FromUnixTimeSeconds(gameTime.GamesTime).DateTime.ToLocalTime(),
// GameDayId = newGameDay.Id
};
// newGameTime = await this._sessionScheduleRepository.AddGameTimeAsync(newGameTime, ct);
newGameDay.GamesTimes.Add(newGameTime);
}
leagueSessionSchedule.GamesDays.Add(newGameDay);
}
// update teams sessions
foreach (TeamSessionViewModel teamSession in newSchedule.TeamsSessions)
{
// retrieve the team with the corresponding id
Team team = await this._teamRepository.GetByIdAsync(teamSession.TeamId, ct);
if(team != null)
{
TeamSession newTeamSession = new TeamSession()
{
Team = team,
LeagueSessionSchedule = leagueSessionSchedule
};
leagueSessionSchedule.TeamsSessions.Add(newTeamSession);
}
}
// update matches for this session
foreach (MatchViewModel match in newSchedule.Matches)
{
Match newMatch = new Match()
{
DateTime = match.DateTime,
HomeTeamId = match.HomeTeam.Id,
AwayTeamId = match.AwayTeam.Id,
LeagueID = match.LeagueID
};
leagueSessionSchedule.Matches.Add(newMatch);
}
try
{
leagueSessionOperations.Add(await this._sessionScheduleRepository.AddScheduleAsync(leagueSessionSchedule, ct));
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
}
}
// ensure all leagueSessionOperations did not return any null values
return leagueSessionOperations.All(op => op != null);
}
`

This is not a many-to-many relationship.
It is two separate one-to-many relationships, which happen to refer to the same table on one end of the relationship.
While it is true that on the database level, both use cases are represented by three tables, i.e. Foo 1->* FooBar *<-1 Bar, these two cases are treated differently by Entity Framework's automated behavior - and this is very important.
EF only handles the cross table for you if it is a direct many-to-many, e.g.
public class Foo
{
public virtual ICollection<Bar> Bars { get; set; }
}
public class Bar
{
public virtual ICollection<Foo> Foos { get; set; }
}
EF handles the cross table behind the scenes, and you are never made aware of the existence of the cross table (from the code perspective).
Importantly, EF Core does not yet support implicit cross tables! There is currently no way to do this in EF Core, but even if there were, you're not using it anyway, so the answer to your problem remains the same regardless of whether you're using EF or EF Core.
However, you have defined your own cross table. While this is still representative of a many-to-many relationship in database terms, it has ceased to be a many-to-many relationship as far as EF is concerned, and any documentation you find on EF's many-to-many relationships no longer applies to your scenario.
Unattached but indirectly added objects are assumed to be new.
By "indirectly added", I mean you that it was added to the context as part of another entity (which you directly added to the context). In the following example, foo is directly added and bar is indirectly added:
var foo = new Foo();
var bar = new Bar();
foo.Bar = bar;
context.Foos.Add(foo); // directly adding foo
// ... but not bar
context.SaveChanges();
When you add (and commit) a new entity to the context, EF adds it for you. However, EF also looks at any related entities that the first entity contains. During the commit in the above example, EF will look at both the foo and bar entities and will handle them accordingly. EF is smart enough to realize that you want bar to be stored in the database since you put it inside the foo object and you explicitly asked EF to add foo to the database.
It is important to realize that you've told EF that foo should be created (since you called Add(), which implies a new item), but you never told EF what it should do with bar. It's unclear (to EF) what you expect EF to do with this, and thus EF is left guessing at what to do.
If you never explained to EF whether bar already exists or not, Entity Framework defaults to assuming it needs to create this entity in the database.
Saving the new LeagueSessionSchedule object throws an error by Entity Framework Core that it cannot INSERT a duplicate primary key value into the dbo.Teams table. I have no idea why its attempting to add to dbo.Teams table
Knowing what you now know, the error becomes clearer. EF is trying to add this team (which was the bar object in my example) because it has no information on this team object and what its state in the database is.
There are a few solutions here.
1. Use the FK property instead of the navigational property
This is my preferred solution because it leaves no room for error. If the team ID does not yet exist, you get an error. At no point will EF try to create a team, since it doesn't even know the team's data, it only knows the (alleged) ID you're trying to create a relationship with.
Note: I am omitting LeagueSessionSchedule as it is unrelated to the current error - but it's essentially the same behavior for both Team and LeagueSessionSchedule.
TeamSession newTeamSession = new TeamSession()
{
TeamId = team.Id
};
By using the FK property instead of the nav prop, you are informing EF that this is an existing team - and therefore EF no longer tries to (re)create this team.
2. Ensure that the team is tracked by the current context
Note: I am omitting LeagueSessionSchedule as it is unrelated to the current error - but it's essentially the same behavior for both Team and LeagueSessionSchedule.
context.Teams.Attach(team);
TeamSession newTeamSession = new TeamSession()
{
Team = team
};
By attaching the object to the context, you are informing it of its existence. The default state of a newly attached entity is Unchanged, meaning "this already exists in the database and has not been changed - so you don't need to update it when we commit the context".
If you have actually made changes to your team that you want to be updated during commit, you should instead use:
context.Entry(team).State = EntityState.Modified;
Entry() inherently also attaches the entity, and by setting its state to Modified you ensure that the new values will be committed to the database when you call SaveChanges().
Note that I prefer solution 1 over solution 2 because it's foolproof and much less likely to lead to unexpected behavior or runtime exceptions.
String primary keys are undesirable
I'm not going to say that it doesn't work, but strings cannot be autogenerated by Entity Framework, making them undesirable as the type of your entity's PK. You will need to manually set your entity PK values.
Like I said, it's not impossible, but your code shows that you're not explicitly setting PK values:
if(team != null)
{
TeamSession newTeamSession = new TeamSession()
{
Team = team,
LeagueSessionSchedule = leagueSessionSchedule
};
leagueSessionSchedule.TeamsSessions.Add(newTeamSession);
}
If you want your PK's to be automatically generated, use an appropriate type. int and Guid are by far the most commonly used types for this.
Otherwise, you're going to have to start setting your own PK values, because if you don't (and the Id value thus defaults to null), your code is going to fail when you add a second TeamSession object using the above code (even though you're doing everything else correctly), since PK null is already taken by the first entity you added to the table.

Updating two related Objects using generic repository pattern and Entity Framework

I am using a generic repository and Entity Framework. I can update one of the classes normally, but I'm having trouble updating the relationship between them.
I'm also using lazy loading, AutoMapper and a service layer to isolate the domain.
public class DetalhesDoArquivoViewModel
{
public DetalhesDoArquivoViewModel()
{
Id = Guid.NewGuid();
}
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string FileName { get; set; }
public string Extension { get; set; }
public Guid FormularioId { get; set; }
public virtual FormularioDoUploadViewModel DescricaoDoUpload { get; set; }
}
public class FormularioDoUploadViewModel
{
public FormularioDoUploadViewModel()
{
Id = Guid.NewGuid();
}
[Key]
public Guid Id { get; set; }
[Required(ErrorMessage = "Digite um nome")]
[Display(Name = "Nome")]
[MaxLength(100)]
public string Nome { get; set; }
[Required(ErrorMessage = "Entre com uma descrição")]
[Display(Name = "Descrição")]
[MaxLength(500)]
public string Descricao { get; set; }
public virtual IEnumerable<DetalhesDoArquivoViewModel> DetalhesDoArquivo { get; set; }
}
My Update repository
public virtual TEntity Atualizar(TEntity obj)
{
var entry = Db.Entry(obj);
Dbset.Attach(obj);
entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
SaveChanges();
return obj;
}
My service class:
public class UploadAppServices : BaseService, IUploadServices
{
private readonly IFormularioUploadRepository _formularioUploadRepository;
private readonly IDetalhesDoArquivoRepository _detalhesDoArquivoRepository;
// Update
public FormularioDoUploadViewModel Atualizar(FormularioDoUploadViewModel formularioDoUploadViewModel)
{
var form = Mapper.Map<FormularioUpload>(formularioDoUploadViewModel);
_formularioUploadRepository.Atualizar(form);
Commit();
return formularioDoUploadViewModel;
}
//getById
public FormularioDoUploadViewModel ObterPorId(Guid id)
{
return Mapper.Map<FormularioDoUploadViewModel>(_formularioUploadRepository.ObterPorId(id));
}
}
My controller:
public class FormularioDoUploadController : BaseController
{
private ApplicationDbContext db = new ApplicationDbContext();
private IFormularioUploadRepository _formularioUploadRepository;
private IUploadServices _uploadServices;
public ActionResult Edit(Guid id)
{
var formularioDoUploadViewModel = _uploadServices.ObterPorId(id);
if (formularioDoUploadViewModel == null)
{
return HttpNotFound();
}
return View(formularioDoUploadViewModel);
}
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public ActionResult Edit(FormularioDoUploadViewModel formularioDoUploadViewModel)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
for (int i = 0; i < Request.Files.Count; i++)
{
var file = Request.Files[i];
if (file != null && file.ContentLength > 0)
{
var fileName = Path.GetFileName(file.FileName);
DetalhesDoArquivoViewModel detalhesDoArquivo = new DetalhesDoArquivoViewModel()
{
FileName = fileName,
Extension = Path.GetExtension(fileName),
FormularioId = formularioDoUploadViewModel.Id,
};
var path = Path.Combine(Server.MapPath("~/App_Data/Upload/"), detalhesDoArquivo.Id + detalhesDoArquivo.Extension);
file.SaveAs(path);
}
// Update
_uploadServices.Atualizar(formularioDoUploadViewModel);
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
}
return View(formularioDoUploadViewModel);
}

Automapper is great for mapping entity to view-model, but I would avoid using it to map from a view-model to entity. This may seem convenient, but you are effectively unconditionally trusting the data received from the client and overwriting your database data. This means you have to send 100% of your entity domain model to the client, revealing more about your domain structure than you need to, and then accept that expanded domain model which can contain alterations that your client application does not intend to make. (intercepting the post to the server in the browser debugger and altering values in the object posted back to the server)
Submit actions should be coded to:
Validate that the current session user has permission to modify the record(s) identified by the submit request.
Limit the update to specific values provided in the request.
Validate those specific values.
Disconnect the user session and notify administrators if any of the above is violated.
In some cases, such as adding a new entity, the payload will effectively be a complete entity and potentially some related details. This still needs to be validated against the known data state. In other cases where you provide an action that updates an entity, the model posted back should merely contain the ID of the entity being updated, and the specific values the client is allowed to update. (not the entire, modified entity)
By passing entities, or view models that map directly to entities for a method intended to update some aspects of the entity, I can:
Re-assign that entity to someone else.
Use the request to attempt to assign another random entity to myself.
Negate or otherwise change any and all data recorded in that entity.
Do not trust anything received from the client.
This issue also presents a concurrent access issue where your system is adopting a "last in wins" scenario. Between the time you provided the entity/view model and the time you submit the view model back to the server, that entity data may have changed. By mapping the data into a new entity class, attaching, marking modified, and saving, you overwrite the data without any consideration as to whether the data was stale.
To avoid the issue you are seeing, and the security/stale issues, you should load the entity from the context on the Update post call, validate the authorization for the current user, check the row version # or timestamp to ensure the record isn't stale, validate your updated details, then, once you're absolutely sure that the data in your view model presents no risk to your entity, you can use automapper's .Map(source, detination) to copy the values across. If you need to update related entities against related view models, then as long as you .Include() those related entities when you retrieve the entity from the context, then the .Map() call should handle the related data.

EntityFramework load / update Entities

i am struggeling for a while now to understand how EF loads / updates entities.
First of all i wanna explain what my app (WPF) is about. I am developing
an application where users can store Todo Items in Categories, these categories are predefined by the application. Each user can read all items but can only delete / update his own items. It's a multiuser system, means the application is running multiple times in the network accessing the same sql server database.
When a user is adding/deleting/updating items the UI on all the other running apps has to update.
My model looks like this:
public class Category
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public List<Todo> Todos { get; set; }
}
public class Todo
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Content { get; set; }
public DateTime LastUpdate { get; set; }
public string Owner { get; set; }
public Category Category { get; set; }
public List<Info> Infos { get; set; }
}
public class Info
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
public Todo Todo { get; set; }
}
I am making the inital load like this, which works fine:
Context.dbsCategories.Where(c => c.Id == id).Include(c => c.Todos.Select(t => t.Infos)).FirstOrDefault();
Now i was trying to load only the Todos which are from the current user therefore i tried this:
Context.dbsCategories.Where(c => c.Id == id).Include(c => c.Todos.Where(t => t.Owner == Settings.User).Select(t => t.Infos)).FirstOrDefault();
This does not work because it's not possible to filter within include, so I tried this:
var cat = Context.dbsCategories.Where(c => c.Id == id).FirstOrDefault();
Context.dbsTodos.Where(t => t.Category.Id == cat.Id && t.Owner == Settings.User).Include(t=>t.Infos);
After executing the second line where i look for the Todo Items, these Items were automatically added to cat's Todos collection. Why? I would have expected that i have to add them manually to cat's Todos collection.
Just for my understanding what is EF doing here exactly?
Now to my main problem -> the synchronization of the data between database and client. I am using a long running Context which lives as long as the application is running to save changes to the database which are made on owned items. The user does not have the possibility to manipulate / delete data from other users this is guarantee by the user interface.
To synchronize the data i build this Synch Method which will run every 10 second, right now it's triggere manually.
Thats my synchronization Code, which only synchronizes Items to the client that do not belong to it.
private async Task Synchronize()
{
using (var ctx = new Context())
{
var database = ctx.dbsTodos().Where(x => x.Owner != Settings.User).Select(t => t.Infos).AsNoTracking();
var loaded = Context.dbsTodos.Local.Where(x => x.Owner != Settings.User);
//In local context but not in database anymore -> Detachen
foreach (var detach in loaded.Except(database, new TodoIdComparer()).ToList())
{
Context.ObjectContext.Detach(detach);
Log.Debug(this, $"Item {detach} detached");
}
//In database and local context -> Check Timestamp -> Update
foreach (var update in loaded.Intersect(database, new TodoIdTimeStampComparer()))
{
await Context.Entry(update).ReloadAsync();
Log.Debug(this, $"Item {update} updated");
}
//In database but not in local context -> Attach
foreach (var attach in database.ToList().Except(loaded, new TodoIdComparer()))
{
Context.dbsTodos().Attach(attach);
Log.Debug(this, $"Item {attach} attached");
}
}
}
I am having following problems / issues of unknow origin with it:
Detaching deleted Items seems to work, right now i am not sure if only the Todo Items are detached or also the Infos.
Updating Items works only for the TodoItem itsself, its not reloading the Infos within? How can i reload the whole entity with all it's relations?
I am thankful for every help on this, even if you are saying it's all wrong what i am doing here!
Attaching new Items and Infos does not work so far? What am i doing wrong here?
Is this the right approach to synchronize data between client and database?
What am i doing wrong here? Is there any "How to Sync" Tutorial? I have not found anything helpful so far?
Thanks!

My, you do like to deviate from entity framework code-first conventions, do you?
(1) Incorrect class definitions
The relations between your tables are Lists, instead of ICollections, they are not declared virtual and you forgot to declare the foreign key
There is a one-to-many relation between Todo and Category: every Todo belongs to exactly one Category (using a foreign key), every Category has zero or more Todos.
You choose to give Category a property:
List<Todo> Todos {get; set;}
Are you sure that category.Todos[4] has a defined meaning?
What would category.Todos.Insert(4, new Todo()) mean?
Better stick to an interface where you can't use functions that have no proper meaning in your database: use ICollection<Todo> Todos {get; set;}. This way you'll have only access to functions that Entity Framework can translate to SQL.
Besides, a query will probably be faster: you give entity framework the possibility to query the data in its most efficient way, instead of forcing it to put the result into a List.
In entity framework the columns of a table are represented by non-virtual properties; the virtual properties represent the relations between the tables (one-to-many, many-to-many)
public class Category
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
... // other properties
// every Category has zero or more Todos (one-to-many)
public virtual ICollection<Todo> Todos { get; set; }
}
public class Todo
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Content { get; set; }
... // other properties
// every Todo belongs to exactly one Category, using foreign key
public int CategoryId { get; set }
public virtual Category Category { get; set; }
// every Todo has zero or more Infos:
public virtual ICollection<Info> Infos { get; set; }
}
You'll probably guess Info by now:
public class Info
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Value { get; set; }
... // other properties
// every info belongs to exactly one Todo, using foreign key
public int TodoId {get; set;}
public virtual Todo Todo { get; set; }
}
Three major improvements:
ICollections instead of Lists
ICollections are virtual, because it is not a real column in your table,
foreign key definitions non-virtual: they are real columns in your tables.
(2) Use Select instead of Include
One of the slower parts of a database query is the transport of the selected data from the Database Management System to your local process. Hence it is wise to limit the amount of transported data.
Suppose Category with Id [4] has a thousand Todos. Every Todo of this Category will have a foreign key with a value 4. So this same value 4 will be transported 1001 times. What a waste of processing power!
In entity framework use Select instead of Include to query data and select only the properties you actually plan to use. Only use Include if you plan to update the Selected data.
Give me all Categories that ... with their Todos that ...
var results = dbContext.Categories
.Where(category => ...)
.Select(category => new
{
// only select properties that you plan to use
Id = category.Id,
Name = category.Name,
...
Todos = category.Todos
.Where(todo => ...) // only if you don't want all Todos
.Select(todo => new
{
// again, select only the properties you'll plan to use
Id = todo.Id,
...
// not needed, you know the value:
// CategoryId = todo.CategoryId,
// only if you also want some infos:
Infos = todo.Infos
.Select(info => ....) // you know the drill by now
.ToList(),
})
.ToList(),
});
(3) Don't keep DbContext alive for such a long time!
Another problem is that you keep your DbContext open for quite some time. This is not how a dbContext was meant. If your database changes between your query and your update, you'll have troubles. I can hardly imagine that you query so much data that you need to optimize it by keeping your dbContext alive. Even if you query a lot of data, the display of this huge amount of data would be the bottle-neck, not the database query.
Better fetch the data once, dispose the DbContext, and when updating fetch the data again, update the changed properties and SaveChanges.
fetch data:
RepositoryCategory FetchCategory(int categoryId)
{
using (var dbContext = new MyDbContext())
{
return dbContext.Categories.Where(category => category.Id == categoryId)
.Select(category => new RepositoryCategory
{
... // see above
})
.FirstOrDefault();
}
}
Yes, you'll need an extra class RepositoryCategory for this. The advantage is, that you hide that you fetched your data from a database. Your code would hardly change if you'd fetch your data from a CSV-file, or from the internet. This is way better testable, and also way better maintainable: if the Category table in your database changes, users of your RepositoryCategory won't notice it.
Consider creating a special namespace for the data you fetch from your database. This way you can name the fetched Category still Category, instead of RepositoryCategory. You even hide better where you fetched your data from.
Back to your question
You wrote:
Now i was trying to load only the Todos which are from the current user
After the previous improvements, this will be easy:
string owner = Settings.User; // or something similar
var result = dbContext.Todos.Where(todo => todo.Owner == owner)
.Select(todo => new
{
// properties you need
})

Updating object with child collection using Entity Framework causing duplicates in database

I have a Customer class that has a relationship to an Address class:
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; }
}
public class Address
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Street1 { get; set; }
//Snip a bunch of properties
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
I have an edit form which displays all the fields for both the customer and address. When this form is submitted, it calls the Edit method in the controller:
public ActionResult Save(Customer customer)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
var viewModel = new CustomerFormViewModel
{
Customer = customer,
CustomerTypes = _context.CustomerTypes.ToList()
};
return View("CustomerForm", viewModel);
}
if (customer.Id == 0)
_context.Customers.Add(customer);
else
{
var existingCustomer = _context.Customers
.Include(c => c.Addresses)
.Single(c => c.Id == customer.Id);
existingCustomer.Name = customer.Name;
existingCustomer.TaxId = customer.TaxId;
existingCustomer.CustomerTypeId = customer.CustomerTypeId;
existingCustomer.CreditLimit = customer.CreditLimit;
existingCustomer.Exempt = customer.Exempt;
existingCustomer.Addresses = customer.Addresses;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Customers");
}
This doesn't work and creates duplicate entries in the Addresses table in the DB. I think I understand why (EF isn't smart enough to know the Addresses inside the collection need to be added/modified/deleted as the case may be). So, what is the best way to fix this?
My instinct is that I need to iterate over the Addresses collections and compare them manually, adding any new ones from the form that don't exist for the customer, updating ones that do exist, and deleting ones that were not sent by the form but exist in the DB for the customer. Something like (ignoring the delete functionality for now):
foreach(Address address in customer.Addresses)
{
if (address.Id == 0)
// Add record
else
// Fetch address record from DB
// Update data
}
// Save context
Is this the best way to go about this, or are there any EF tricks to iterating and syncing a child collection to the DB?
Oh, and one question which has me scratching my head - I can sort of understand how a new address record is getting created in the DB, but what I don't get is the existing address record is also updated to have its customer_id set to NULL...how the heck does that happen? That leads me to believe that EF does see the original address record is somehow linked (as it is modifying it) but it's not smart enough to realize the record I'm passing in should replace it?
Thanks -- also, this is EF6 and MVC5

The problem comes from the line
existingCustomer.Addresses = customer.Addresses;
in your code. This like assigns field Addresses from customer coming from the model. So far ok. The point is that customer does not have any relation to the database model at this point (it's not coming from the database but from the view).
If you would like to update existingCustomer.Addresses with the data coming from the model, you need to merge the data instead of replacing it. The following "pseudo code" might give you a direction:
void MergeAddresses(var existingAddresses, var newAddresses) {
foreach(var address in newAddresses) {
if (existingAddresses.Contains(newAddress)) {
// merge fields if applicable
}
else {
// add field to existingAddresses - be ware to use a "cloned" list
}
}
// now delete items from existing list
foreach (var address in existingAddresses.CloneList()) {
if (!newAddresses.Contains(address)) {
// remove from existingAddresses
}
}
}

Is this the best way to go about this, or are there any EF tricks to iterating and syncing a child collection to the DB?
No, there aren't such tricks. EF designers left saving detached entities totally up to us - the developers.
However there is a package called GraphDiff which is addressing that, so you could give it a try. Here is how your code would look like using it:
using RefactorThis.GraphDiff;
...
_context.UpdateGraph(customer, map => map.OwnedCollection(
e => e.Addresses, with => with.AssociatedEntity(e => e.Customer)));
_context.SaveChanges();

Why isn't Entity Framework updating the child object here?

I have a Customer model with a MailingAddress property - this is a navigation property to an Address class:
public class Customer
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public virtual Address MailingAddress { get; set; }
}
I have a form that posts a viewmodel back which contains a customer, along with the mailing address. Here is the save method in the controller:
public ActionResult Save(CustomerFormViewModel viewModel)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View("CustomerForm", viewModel);
}
if (viewModel.Customer.Id == 0)
{
_context.Customers.Add(viewModel.Customer);
}
else
{
var customerInDb = _context.Customers
.Single(c => c.Id == viewModel.Customer.Id);
_context.Entry(customerInDb).CurrentValues.SetValues(viewModel.Customer);
}
_context.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Customers");
}
When posting a new customer, everything works fine (mostly, see note below) and the customer is created along with a corresponding address record. However, when I edit an existing entry, the customer is updated but the address is not. I verified the updated address is being passed in the customer object. If I add a line like this:
_context.Entry(customerInDb.MailingAddress).CurrentValues.SetValues(viewModel.Customer.MailingAddress);
Then it is updated.
Is the child here still considered a detached entity? I assumed since it is a property of the Customer I am fetching it would be automatically saved with the parent. Why does this work with a new record and not with an update?
One note about the new record creation - a Customer record is created and has a MailingAddress_Id pointing to the address. The Address record is also created, but its Customer_Id is null...an idea why EF is not adding the key on that side of the relationship? Address model and view model code in case it helps:
public class Address
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Street1 { get; set; }
// Snip a bunch of address data properties
public virtual Customer Customer { get; set; }
}
public class CustomerFormViewModel
{
// Snip irrelevant properties
public Customer Customer { get; set; }
}

First of all, if your Customer and Address are in one-to-one relationship, then no foreign key is needed. Actually, in one-to-one relatioonships primary key on dependant side of relationship is also foreign key to principal side. Secondly, when you create new Customer you use context.Customers.Add(viewModel.Customer); and it adds model with all of its child models, but when you try to update using _context.Entry(customerInDb).CurrentValues.SetValues(viewModel.Customer); it does not add all child navigation properties, to do so, you have to tell it to EntityFramework explicitly:
var customerInDb = _context.Customers
.Single(c => c.Id == viewModel.Customer.Id);
_context.Entry(customerInDb)
.CurrentValues
.SetValues(viewModel.Customer);
var mailingAddressInDb = _context.Addresses
.Single(m => m.Id = viewModel.Customer.MailingAddress.Id);
_context.Entry(mailingAddressInDb)
.CurrentValues
.SetValues(viewModel.Customer.MailingAddress);
It should work for you. But it is a bit awkward. When you have dozens of models, you would not even want to imagine it.
Good news
The good news is that, there is an API to solve this problem from its roots. Your problem will be solved in just a few steps. You install it from NuGet using Install-Package Ma.EntityFramework.GraphManager, configure your models to meet prerequisites (which are so easy) and handle whole graph using single line of code:
public ActionResult Save(CustomerFormViewModel viewModel)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return View("CustomerForm", viewModel);
}
// Define state of whole graph with single line
_context.AddOrUpdate(viewModel.Customer);
_context.SaveChanges();
return RedirectToAction("Index", "Customers");
}
Please, have a look at CodeProject article for a quick wallktrough. It has example code, so you can download and examine it. I am the owner of this API and I am ready to answer to your questions.