Develop Reference

Duplicate entities when setting state within a collection in Entity Framework

I have a solution which uses Entity Framework to insert invoices to a database table. These invoices reference an order, which in turn also references an order item collection.
In this instance I am trying to add an order to the database, however the code is inside a new DbContext and so I need to attach the order and order items to the context, as these already exist in the database and shouldn't be re-added.
I've cut down the model properties for the sake of demonstration:
public class Invoice {
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int InvoiceId { get; set; }
public string OrderNumber { get; set; }
...
public virtual List<InvoiceLineItem> LineItems { get; set; }
}
public class InvoiceLineItem {
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
...
public ShopifyOrderItem { get; set; }
}
public class ShopifyOrder {
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
public long Id { get; set; }
public int OrderNumber { get; set; }
...
public OrderInvoiceStatus InvoiceStatus { get; set; }
public virtual List<ShopifyOrderItem> OrderItems { get; set; }
}
public class ShopifyOrderItem {
[Key, DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
public long Id { get; set; }
...
[Required]
public virtual ShopifyOrder ShopifyOrder { get; set; }
}
In the invoice engine, I'm running the following code for each invoice to add it to the database:
ShopifyOrder order = await db.ShopifyOrders.SingleOrDefaultAsync(x => x.OrderNumber.ToString() == inv.OrderNumber);
if (order != null) {
// Attach marketplace entity to the invoice to avoid duplicate primary key exceptions
db.Marketplaces.Attach(inv.Marketplace);
db.Invoices.Add(inv);
order.InvoiceStatus = OrderInvoiceStatus.InProgress;
}
I've tried a number of methods to try and attach the states, however they all throw errors.
inv.LineItems.ForEach(li => {
db.Entry(li).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
db.Entry(li.ShopifyOrderItem).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
db.Entry(li.ShopifyOrderItem.ShopifyOrder).State = EntityState.Modified;
});
The above code returns the following error on save:
EntityFramework: Saving or accepting changes failed because more than one entity of type 'TorroModels.ShopifyOrder' have the same primary key value. Ensure that explicitly set primary key values are unique. Ensure that database-generated primary keys are configured correctly in the database and in the Entity Framework model.
What is the best way to attach the LineItems/ShopifyOrderItems without trying to attach the ShopifyOrder connected property multiple times?

Sorry to say but it seems that you need to follow the best practice first when constructing a relationship. You may follow this link :
http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/entity-relationships.aspx
In short :
Avoid using only "Id" in every entity, or you can use attributes to map between the physical name and the property name
It seems that you have circular references here, so maybe you could simplify it first
Next, you can read this link :
http://www.entityframeworktutorial.net/EntityFramework5/attach-disconnected-entity-graph.aspx
if you need to know more about what's the best practice of attaching entities, but in my opinion, just don't abuse this feature, because using normal CRUD should be sufficient most of the time.
I'm sorry I cannot help you more than this, because of lack of information I may need, and with my reputation I still cannot comment directly in your post to ask for it.

Why EF navigation property return null?

I have two model
1)
public class Indicator
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public int MaxPoint { get; set; }
public string Comment { get; set; }
public DateTime DateChanged { get; set; }
public DateTime DateCreated { get; set; }
public virtual IList<CalculationType> CalculationTypes { get; set; }
public virtual IList<TestEntity> TestEntitys { get; set; }
public virtual IndicatorGroup IndicatorGroup { get; set; }
}
2)
public class CalculationType
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string UnitName { get; set; }
public int Point { get; set; }
public DateTime DateCreated { get; set; }
public DateTime DateChanged { get; set; }
public virtual Indicator Indicator { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Сalculation> Calculations { get; set; }
}
I executing this code
var indicator = DataContext.Indicators.FirstOrDefault(i => i.ID == indicatorID);
var test = DataContext.CalculationTypes.FirstOrDefault();
first line return null on navigation property CalculationTypes
Second line return empty collection. Why?
UPDATE
snapshot database
project link https://github.com/wkololo4ever/Stankin
added Calculation
public class Сalculation
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public virtual CalculationType CalculationType { get; set; }
public virtual ApplicationUser Creator { get; set; }
}

1) Is Lazy Loading enabled? If not, you need to explicitly load your navigation properties with the '.Include' syntax.
2) Are you sure EF should be able to detect that relation? Did you use Code First or Database First?
Edit: 3) Are you sure there is data in your database and that the foreign key from Indicator to IndicatorGroup has a value for that specific record? I am saying this because the value "null" is valid if there is simply no data.
P.S. If you do not see a foreign key on Indicator called "IndicatorGroupId", there might be an "IndicatorId" on the table "IndicatorGroup", in which case - going from the names you provided - your database is misconfigured and you will need to use fluent syntax or data attributes to instruct EF on how to make the foreign keys.

Try this:
DbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = true;
DbContext.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
If DbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled is set to false, DbContext will not load child objects for some parent object unless Include method is called on parent object. Setting DbContext.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled to true or false will have no impact on its behaviours.
If DbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled is set to true, child objects will be loaded automatically, and DbContext.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled value will control when child objects are loaded.
I think this is problem:
Edit: 3) Are you sure there is data in your database and that the
foreign key from Indicator to IndicatorGroup has a value for that
specific record? I am saying this because the value "null" is valid if
there is simply no data.
P.S. If you do not see a foreign key on Indicator called
"IndicatorGroupId", there might be an "IndicatorId" on the table
"IndicatorGroup", in which case - going from the names you provided -
your database is misconfigured and you will need to use fluent syntax
or data attributes to instruct EF on how to make the foreign keys.
Try to this and make sure foreign key is corrected.
public class CalculationType
{
public long ID { get; set; }
public string UnitName { get; set; }
public int Point { get; set; }
public DateTime DateCreated { get; set; }
public DateTime DateChanged { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("IndicatorID")]
public string IndicatorId { get; set; } //this is the foreign key, i saw in your database is: Indicator_ID, avoid this, rename it to IndicatorID or IndicatorId
public virtual Indicator Indicator { get; set; }
public virtual IList<Сalculation> Calculations { get; set; }
}

Same behavior, but different root cause than selected answer:
Navigation property can also be null if you turned off myContext.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled
Very obvious, but this got me when I was implementing some performance improvments.

Check this out: Navigation Property With Code First . It mentions about why navigation property is null and the solutions of it.
By default, navigation properties are null, they are not loaded by
default. For loading navigation property, we use “include” method of
IQuearable and this type of loading is called Eager loading.
Eager loading: It is a process by which a query for one type of entity
loads the related entities as a part of query and it is achieved by
“include” method of IQueryable.

I experienced this issue, where navigation properites were not loaded, even when the Include statement was present.
The problem was caused by string-comparison differences between SQL Server and EF6 using .NET. I was using a VARCHAR(50) field as the primary key in my customers table and also, as a foreign key field in my audit_issues table. What I did not realize was that my keys in the customers table had two additional white space characters on the end; these characters were not present in my audit_issues table.
However, SQL Server will automatically pad whitespace for string comparisons. This applies for WHERE and JOIN clauses, as well as for checks on FOREIGN KEY constraints. I.e. the database was telling me string were equivalent and the constraint passed. Therefore I assumed that they actually were exactly equal. But that was false. DATALENGTH of one field = 10, while the DATALENGTH of the other = 8.
EF6 would correctly compose the SQL query to pull the foreign key related fields and I would see them both in the generated Sql query and in the results. However, EF6 would silently fail when loading the Navigation Properties because .NET does not consider those strings equal. Watch out for whitespace in string-type foreign key fields!.

This article helped me.
In sum :
Install-Package Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Proxies
In Startup.cs
using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.AddDbContext<MyDbContext>(builder =>
{
builder.UseLazyLoadingProxies(); // <-- add this
}, ServiceLifetime.Singleton);

This is a variant of Keytrap's answer. Using .NET 6 and EF Core 6, I created a ContextPartials.cs for any custom configurations that I don't want EF's Scaffold command to overwrite:
Required Package:
Install-Package Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Proxies
Code (ContextPartials.cs):
// NOTE: I am not using the new file-scoped namespace on purpose
namespace DataAccess.Models.MyDatabase
{
// NOTE: This is a partial outside of the generated file from Scaffold-DbContext
public partial class MyDatabaseContext
{
// NOTE: This enables foreign key tables to become accessible
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
=> optionsBuilder.UseLazyLoadingProxies();
}
}

SQLite-Net Extensions not inserting in cascade in some cases

I am using SQLite-Net PCL together with SQLite-Net extensions for the development of an application using Xamarin.
In my model I have an entity (let's call it A) which is connected to other four entities through one-to-many relationships (that are represented as lists in the model). In order to populate the tables recursively when inserting an object of A in the database I have defined the relations to use Cascade on both read, insert and delete.
In order to test if I did everything correctly I created an object of type A and populated the including lists, and finally I have inserted it into the database. The strange thing is that, for 2 of the 4 including lists the insertion went well, and all the connected objects are inserted. For other 2, instead, only the first object of the list is inserted in the database. To be clear, I am checking the database content directly with a db browser.
The following is an example of one of the objects for which only the first element of the list is inserted.
public class Username : Entity
{
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
[ForeignKey(typeof(A))]
public int AId
{
get;
set;
}
public Username(string username)
{
Name = username;
}
}
This is instead one of the objects for which the insertion is correct.
public class AnAddress: Entity
{
public string Address
{
get;
set;
}
public AddressType Type
{
get;
set;
}
[ForeignKey(typeof(A))]
public int AId
{
get;
set;
}
}
To be clear, the base object Entity contains the definition of the primary key:
public abstract class Entity
{
[PrimaryKey, AutoIncrement]
public int Id
{
get;
set;
}
public Entity()
{
Id = -1;
}
}
And this is the way the relationships are defined:
public class A : Entity
{
public string Name
{
get;
set;
}
[OneToMany(CascadeOperations = CascadeOperation.All)]
public List<AnAddress> Addresses
{
get;
set;
}
[OneToMany(CascadeOperations = CascadeOperation.All)]
public List<Username> Usernames
{
get;
set;
}
}
I then create an A object by initialising it with two lists (List and List) in the same identical way.
I finally insert the object in the database with
c.InsertWithChildren(entity, recursive: true));
Where entity is of type A and c is the connection object.
Do you have any clue about the motivation of this strange behaviour?

How do I delete related objects in Entity framework code first database?

DBContext class is
public class VGDB : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Planet> Planets { get; set; }
}
And model looks like:
public class Planet
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
...
public List<Building> Constructions { get; set; }
}
public class Building
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public decimal Lvl { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
}
Repository class:
public class VGDBRepository
{
private readonly VGDB _vgdb;
...
public void RemovePlanets()
{
foreach (Planet planet in _vgdb.Planets)
{
_vgdb.Planets.Remove(planet);
}
_vgdb.SaveChanges();
}
...
}
Entity Framework creates database with two tables: Planets and Buildings, related by Planet_Id field. When I call RemovePlanets() method of my VGDBRepository class it removes planets record from Planets table and sets Planet_Id field of all buildings, related with deleted planets, in Buildings table to null but not deletes them, so I have redundant records in database. I use code-first strategy to create database. How can I force Entity Framework to remove such type of related data???

You would need to cascade your deletes.
Take a look at this:
Stackoverflow Example Cascade Deletes
And this:
Msdn Code First with Enabling Cascade Deletes

I had the exact same problem and I recently figured out how to fix it so I thought I'd just add on to the answer provided by Dima.
The code that you have above for Planet and Building look very similar to how I had my related objects set up; it made sense to me to set up the relations like that. Moreover, the tables seemed to generate correctly with a FK reference back to the parent table. Like you, when I deleted my parent record (Planets, in your case), the child records (Buildings, in your case) still stuck around but the FK field had the parent ID removed so that it just had a null value. The objects were removed from the in memory collection, though, so things were getting out of sync. The thing that was really confusing to me was that Entity Framework Code First is supposed to, by default, cascade deletes like this and I didn't understand why my deletes weren't cascading.
After some digging around, I found that I had to set up a Foreign Key Association within the child class so that Entity Framework did the cascade delete correctly. So you would need to change your code to look like this:
public class Planet
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
...
public List<Building> Constructions { get; set; }
}
public class Building
{
[Key]
public int Id { get; set; }
public decimal Lvl { get; set; }
public string Type { get; set; }
//Add these two properties to create the Foreign Key Association
public int planetID { get; set; }
public Planet planet { get; set; }
}
As soon as I added the two properties and did an automigration on my database, the deletes cascaded just like I expected them to. I'm still a little unclear on why this needs to be done, but that's a subject for a separate post... I just thought that I'd share what had gotten this working for me.

Eager loading may help you. Otherwise, enable lazy loading.
foreach (Planet planet in _vgdb.Planets)
{
_vgdb.Planets.Include(p=>p.Constructions).Remove(planet);
}

Creating a master table with two child tables linking one-to-zero-or-one with EF 4.1

Using MVC EF4.1, I am trying to link a table (TableMaster) to TableChildOne (relationship one-to-zero-or-one) and also to TableChildTwo (also one-to-zero-or-one).
TableChildOne and TableChildTwo are not directly linked.
TablechildOne and TableChildTwo needs to share the primary key of TableMaster (I read this is not possible, any workarounds?)
I am including an image to make this a bit more clear, not sure if there should be foreign keys added somewhere, this is not an actual model created by the code, but is what i would like. not sure if there should be foreign keys somewhere?
image : http://www.davidsmit.za.net/img/untitled.png
My code below compiles, but when trying to add a controller, I get the error :
"An item with the same key has already been added"
public class TableMaster
{
public int TableMasterID { get; set; }
public DateTime ReportDate { get; set; }
public virtual TableChildOne TableChildOne { get; set; }
public virtual TableChildTwo TableChildTwo { get; set; }
}
public class TableChildOne
{
[Key]
public int TableMasterID { get; set; }
public String Description_1 { get; set; }
public virtual TableMaster TableMaster { get; set; }
}
public class TableChildTwo
{
[Key]
public int TableMasterID { get; set; }
public String Description_2 { get; set; }
public virtual TableMaster TableMaster { get; set; }
}
public class Context : DbContext
{
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<TableMaster>()
.HasOptional(p => p.TableChildOne).WithRequired(p => p.TableMaster);
modelBuilder.Entity<TableMaster>()
.HasOptional(p => p.TableChildTwo).WithRequired(p => p.TableMaster);
}
When I remove the second table completely, it works fine.
I used the below link as an example (tables OfficeAssignment and Student), which shows how to link a table one-to-zero-or-one. But I have trouble adding another table with the same linkage:
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-using-mvc/creating-a-more-complex-data-model-for-an-asp-net-mvc-application
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
appelmeester

Could you give more background about why you want to do this? If you are sharing the primary key across three tables you are partitioning data. What development scenario are you trying to address. It sounds like you might be wanting to map an object inheritance, is that right?
If you truly only have a couple of Descriptions, then this is really just one table.
EDIT:
Cool. Because the business context of this request is a bit vague, I can't quite understand still, sorry. If you have a TableMaster and then some child tables, then this sounds like an inheritance tree. So with EF, you can choose many different strategies to model this (TPH, TPT etc). For this, I would suggest looking into TPT because this might allow you to get the granularity for how you want to clean up the data. Also, you get the benefit that the tables will be created, by default, largely like you have specified. Check this out for reference.