Develop Reference

How could I get a Relative Entity's count using EF6

I have a Entity called "Client", and another Entity called "Card".
A Client may have many Cards.
My Client Entity looks like this:
public class Client{
public virtual ICollection<Card> Cards {get; set;}
}
Now I want to show the Client data in a DataGrid in WPF, and I want to get Cards Count data,so I add a property to Client Entity, which like this:
public class Client{
public virtual ICollection<Card> Cards {get; set;}
public int CardCount
{
return Cards.Count;
}
}
And then I query the data with Linq and Bind to view
var query = from n in db.Clients select n;
When I run the Application, I got a Exception just right on the return Cards.Count; line;
System.ObjectDisposedException
The ObjectContext instance has been disposed and can no longer be used for operations that require a connection.
So how could I correctly get the cards count?

There is a way simpler method than the other answers here show. Please also realize that solutions such as
var client = db.Clients.FirstOrDefault(c=> c.Id = someid); //get a client
if (client != null)
{
cardCount = client.Cards.Count;
}
will cause an issue called Select N+1 problem. Read up on it if interested, but in a nutshell, it means the following:
Because you are not only interested in one exact client, but you want to display N clients, you need to do one (1) query to get just the clients. Then, by doing the FirstOrDefault stuff, you are actually doing one (1) extra db roundtrip to the database per Client record, which results in an additional N * 1 = N roundtrips. What this means that, if you were to just query the Clients without any related data, you could get however many client records you like, in just one query. But by fetching related data to each of them one-by-one, you are doing way too many db roundtrips.
Here is a way to solve this issue, by using joins and projections. You can get all the data you need in a single DB access:
using (var context = GetDbContext())
{
return context.Clients.Select(cli => new YourViewModel
{
Name = cli.FullName,
// Other prop setters go here
CardCount = cli.Cards.Count
}).Skip((page - 1) * pageSize).Take(pageSize).ToList();
}
You might be wondering, what's the difference afterall? Well, here, you are not working with materialized objects, as others call them here, but with a DbContext. By applying the proper LINQ operators to it (note, that this works not just with DbContext, but also with any IQueryable (well obviously not if you call AsQueryable() on an already in-memory collection but whatever)), LINQ to Entities can construct a proper SQL to join the tables and project the results and therefore you fetch all required data in one go. Note that LINQ to Entities IS ABLE to translate the cli.Cards.Count into a proper SQL Count statement.

You can get the count without loading the entities like this:
using (var context = new MyContext())
{
var client = context.Client.Find(clientId);
// Count how many cards the client has
var cardsCount = context.Entry(client)
.Collection(b => b.Cards)
.Query()
.Count();
}
More information on MSDN page.

You get an ObjectDisposedException if you do not materialize the retreived query. In the following case, the query gets executed only when you Access the first time the list from GetNonMaterialized and not before leaving the method. Fact of this the db is disposed because of lost of scope.
public IEnumerable<Client> GetNonMaterialized()
{
return from n in db.Clients select n;
}
In the following case the query is executed before leaving the method.
public IEnumerable<Client> GetMaterialized()
{
return (from n in db.Clients select n).ToList();
}
Always be sure that the query is executed before exiting the scope of a ObjectContext.
If you want to know whether the query is executed and when enalbe Logging of EF.
How can I turn off Entity Framework 6.1 logging?

Entity Framework inserting child objects in the wrong order

Question
Why is EF first inserting a child object (PersonnelWorkRecord) with a dependency, before the object that it is depended on (TimesheetActivity). Also what are my options on correcting this?
ERD (simplified)
This is predefined by another system out of my direct control.
EF setup and save code
I am not sure I understand why/how Entity Framework is inserting the objects I have in the order it does however here is the code I am using to insert a parent and several children.
using (var db = new DataContext(user))
{
timesheet.State = State.Added;
timesheet.SequenceNumber = newSequenceNumber;
this.PrepareAuditFields(timesheet);
//To stop EF from trying to add all child objects remove them from the timehseets object.
timesheet = RemoveChildObjects(timesheet, db);
//Add the Timesheet object to the database context, and save.
db.Timesheets.Add(timesheet);
result = db.SaveChanges() > 0;
}
SQL Trace of EF's Inserts
When I run the code I get a SQL foreign key violation on the PersonnelWorkRecord (TimesheetActivityID) because I have not yet added the Activity (see trace).
exec sp_executesql N'insert [dbo].[Timesheets]([ProjectID], [TimesheetStatusID], ...
exec sp_executesql N'insert [dbo].[PersonnelWorkdays]([TimesheetID], [PersonnelID], ...
exec sp_executesql N'insert [dbo].[PersonnelWorkRecords]([PersonnelWorkdayID],[TimesheetActivityID], ...
Data Context Summary
modelBuilder.Entity<PersonnelWorkday>().HasRequired(pwd => pwd.Personnel).WithMany(p => p.PersonnelWorkdays).HasForeignKey(pwd => pwd.PersonnelID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<PersonnelWorkday>().HasRequired(pwd => pwd.Timesheet).WithMany(t => t.PersonnelWorkdays).HasForeignKey(pwd => pwd.TimesheetID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<PersonnelWorkRecord>().HasRequired(pwr => pwr.PersonnelWorkday).WithMany(pwd => pwd.PersonnelWorkRecords).HasForeignKey(pwr => pwr.PersonnelWorkdayID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<PersonnelWorkRecord>().HasRequired(pwr => pwr.TimesheetActivity).WithMany(ta => ta.PersonnelWorkRecords).HasForeignKey(pwr => pwr.TimesheetActivityID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<TimesheetActivity>().HasRequired(ta => ta.ProjectActivity).WithMany(a => a.TimesheetActivities).HasForeignKey(ta => ta.ProjectActivityCodeID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<TimesheetActivity>().HasOptional(ta => ta.Facility).WithMany(f => f.TimesheetActivities).HasForeignKey(tf => tf.FacilityID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
modelBuilder.Entity<TimesheetActivity>().HasRequired(ta => ta.Timesheet).WithMany(t => t.TimesheetActivities).HasForeignKey(ta => ta.TimesheetID).WillCascadeOnDelete(false);
Remove Child Objects
Here is the code for the child objects method. I added this method to remove the objects from the timesheets' child objects related objects that are not foreign keys. For example I have a Crew object but I also have a CrewID foreign key, so I have set Crew = null so that EF does not try to insert it since it already exists.
private Timesheet RemoveChildObjects(Timesheet timesheet, DataContext db)
{
timesheet.Crew = null;
timesheet.Foreman = null;
timesheet.Location = null;
timesheet.Project = null;
timesheet.SigningProjectManager = null;
timesheet.TimesheetStatus = null;
timesheet.Creator = null;
timesheet.Modifier = null;
if (timesheet.TimesheetActivities != null)
{
foreach (TimesheetActivity tsa in timesheet.TimesheetActivities)
{
tsa.Creator = null;
if (tsa.EquipmentWorkRecords != null)
{
tsa.EquipmentWorkRecords = RemoveChildObjects(tsa.EquipmentWorkRecords, db);
}
tsa.Facility = null;
tsa.Modifier = null;
if (tsa.PersonnelWorkRecords != null)
{
tsa.PersonnelWorkRecords = RemoveChildObjects(tsa.PersonnelWorkRecords, db);
}
tsa.ProjectActivity = null;
tsa.Structures = null;
tsa.Timesheet = null;
}
}
if (timesheet.TimesheetEquipment != null)
{
foreach (TimesheetEquipment te in timesheet.TimesheetEquipment)
{
te.Equipment = null;
te.Timesheet = null;
}
}
if (timesheet.EquipmentWorkdays != null)
{
timesheet.EquipmentWorkdays = RemoveChildObjects(timesheet.EquipmentWorkdays, true, db);
}
if (timesheet.TimesheetPersonnel != null)
{
foreach (TimesheetPersonnel tp in timesheet.TimesheetPersonnel)
{
tp.Personnel = null;
tp.PersonnelWorkday = null;
if (tp.PersonnelWorkday != null)
{
tp.PersonnelWorkday = RemoveChildObjects(tp.PersonnelWorkday, db);
}
tp.Timesheet = null;
}
}
if (timesheet.PersonnelWorkdays != null)
{
timesheet.PersonnelWorkdays = RemoveChildObjects(timesheet.PersonnelWorkdays, true, db);
}
return timesheet;
}
Debug of values before EF save
From my understanding anything an dbContex.ObjectNameHere.Local will be added/modified/deleted when a dbContext.Save() is called. (Depending on what the entity State is set too.) Here is what EF is trying to save before I call the save() and get an SQL FK exception.
Then I get the FK exception.
The INSERT statement conflicted with the FOREIGN KEY constraint
"FK_PersonnelWorkRecords_TimesheetActivities". The conflict occurred
in database "VPMTEST_GC", table "dbo.TimesheetActivities", column
'TimesheetActivityID'. The statement has been terminated.
Notes
Please let me know if there is anything I can post to help describe my question. I have looked around google / SO for answers but so far no solid answers, it looks like EF can not determine the order of inserting objects unless the Domain model is setup differently? I am not able to change the structure of most objects as they are used by another system. I can attempt to change my EF call, I would prefer not to use Raw SQL as the objects are quite a bit more extensive then the simplified versions I have posted here.
Similar questions: Self referencing entity and insert order

In your RemoveChildObjects method I see the line...
tsa.Timesheet = null;
So, apparently your are setting the inverse navigation property of Timesheet.TimesheetActivities to null. Are you doing the same with PersonnelWorkRecord.TimesheetActivity and PersonnelWorkRecord.PersonnelWorkday, i.e. do you set those properties to null as well in the nested RemoveChildObjects methods?
This could be a problem because you have two different paths from Timesheet to PersonnelWorkRecord, namely:
Timesheet -> TimesheetActivities -> PersonnelWorkRecords
Timesheet -> PersonnelWorkdays -> PersonnelWorkRecords
When you call db.Timesheets.Add(timesheet) I believe EF will traverse each branch in the object graph one by one and determine on the path which related objects ("nodes") are dependent and which are principal in a relationship to determine the order of insertion. timesheet itself is principal for all its relationships, therefore it is clear that it must be inserted first. Then EF starts to iterate through one of the collections Timesheet.TimesheetActivities or Timesheet.PersonnelWorkdays. Which one comes first doesn't matter. Apparently EF starts with Timesheet.PersonnelWorkdays. (It would not solve the problem if it would start with Timesheet.TimesheetActivities, you would get the same exception, but with PersonnelWorkRecord.PersonnelWorkday instead of PersonnelWorkRecord.TimesheetActivity.) PersonnelWorkday is only dependent on Timesheet which is already inserted. So, PersonnelWorkday can be inserted as well.
Then EF continues traversing with PersonnelWorkday.PersonnelWorkRecords. With respect to the PersonnelWorkday dependency of PersonnelWorkRecord there is again no problem because the PersonnelWorkday has already been inserted before. But when EF encounters the TimesheetActivity dependency of PersonnelWorkRecord it will see that this TimesheetActivity is null (because you've set it to null). It assumes now that the dependency is described by the foreign key property TimesheetActivityID alone which must refer to an existing record. It inserts the PersonnelWorkRecord and this violates a foreign key constraint.
If PersonnelWorkRecord.TimesheetActivity is not null EF would detect that this object hasn't been inserted yet but it is the principal for PersonnelWorkRecord. So, it can determine that this TimesheetActivity must be inserted before the PersonnelWorkRecord.
I would hope that your code works if you don't set the inverse navigation properties to null - or at least not the two navigation properties in PersonnelWorkRecord. (Setting the other navigation properties like tsa.Creator, tsa.Facility, etc. to null should not be a problem because those related objects really already exist in the database and you have set the correct FK property values for those.)

This may no longer be valid, however is it an option to use a transaction and adding each child object individually?
Note:
I think Slauma's solution is more complete, however a transaction call may still be an option for others with similar issues.

A generic way to save an entity in Entity Framework

I am trying to write a GenericEFRepository which will be used by other Repositories. I have a Save method as below.
public virtual void Save(T entity) // where T : class, IEntity, new() And IEntity enforces long Id { get; set; }
{
var entry = _dbContext.Entry(entity);
if (entry.State != EntityState.Detached)
return; // context already knows about entity, don't do anything
if (entity.Id < 1)
{
_dbSet.Add(entity);
return;
}
var attachedEntity = _dbSet.Local.SingleOrDefault(e => e.Id == entity.Id);
if (attachedEntity != null)
_dbContext.Entry(attachedEntity).State = EntityState.Detached;
entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
}
You can find the problem in comments of below code
using (var uow = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IUnitOfWork>()) // uow is implemented like EFUnitOfWork which gives the DbContext instance to repositories in GetRepository
{
var userRepo = uow.GetRepository<IUserRepository>();
var user = userRepo.Get(1);
user.Name += " Updated";
userRepo.Save(user);
uow.Save(); // OK only the Name of User is Updated
}
using (var uow = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IUnitOfWork>())
{
var userRepo = uow.GetRepository<IUserRepository>();
var user = new User
{
Id = 1,
Name = "Brand New Name"
};
userRepo.Save(user);
uow.Save();
// NOT OK
// All fields (Name, Surname, BirthDate etc.) in User are updated
// which causes unassigned fields to be cleared on db
}
The only solution I can think of is creating Entities via repository like userRepo.CreateEntity(id: 1) and repository will return an Entity which is attached to DbContext. But this seems error prone, still any developer may create an entity using new keyword.
What are your solution suggestions about this particular problem?
Note: I already know about cons and pros of using a GenericRepository and an IEntity interface. So, "Don't use a GenericRepository, don't use an IEntity, don't put a long Id in every Entity, don't do what you are trying to do" comments will not help.

Yes it is error prone but simply that is the problem with EF and repositories. You must either create entity and attach it before you set any data you want to update (Name in your case) or you must set modified state for each property you want to persist instead of whole entity (as you can imagine again developer can forget to do that).
The first solution leads to special method on your repository doing just this:
public T Create(long id) {
T entity = _dbContext.Set<T>().Create();
entity.Id = id;
_dbContext.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
return entity;
}
The second solution needs something like
public void Save(T entity, params Expression<Func<T, TProperty>>[] properties) {
...
_dbContext.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
if (properties.Length > 0) {
foreach (var propertyAccessor in properties) {
_dbContext.Entry(entity).Property(propertyAccessor).IsModified = true;
}
} else {
_dbContext.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
}
and you will call it like:
userRepository(user, u => u.Name);

This is kind of a fundamental problem of this approach because you expect the repository to magically know which fields you changed and which ones you didn't. Using null as a signal for "unchanged" does not work in case null is a valid value.
You'd need to tell the repository which fields you want to have written, for example sending a string[] with the field names. Or one bool for each field. I do not think this is a good solution.
Maybe you can invert the control flow like this:
var entity = repo.Get(1);
entity.Name += "x";
repo.SaveChanges();
That would allow change tracking to work. It is closer to how EF wants to be used.
Alternative:
var entity = repo.Get(1);
entity.Name += "x";
repo.Save(entity);

While the other two answers provide good insight into how perhaps you can avoid this issue I think its worth pointing out a couple of things.
What you are trying to do (ie a proxy entity update) is extremely EF-centeric and IMO actually doesn't make sense outside of the EF context and hence it doesnt make sense that a generic repository would be expected to behave in this way.
You actually haven't even gotten the flow quite right for EF, if you attach an object with a few fields already set EF will conciser what you told it to be the current DB state unless you modify a value or set a modified flag. To do what you are attempting without a select you would normally attach an object without the name and then set the name after attaching the ID object
Your approach is normally used for performance reasons, I would suggest that by abstracting over the top of an existing framework you are almost always going to suffer some logical performance degradation. If this is a big deal maybe you shouldn't be using a repository? The more you add to your repository to cater to performance concerns the more complex and restrictive it becomes and the harder it gets to provide more than one implementation.
All that being said I do think you can handle this particular case in a generic situation.
This is one possible way you could do it
public void UpdateProperty(Expression<Func<T,bool>> selector, FunctionToSetAProperty setter/*not quite sure of the correct syntax off the top of my head*/)
{
// look in local graph for T and see if you have an already attached version
// if not attach it with your selector value set
// set the property of the setter
}
Hope this makes some sense, I'm not by my dev box atm so I cant really do a working sample.
I think this is a better approach for a generic repository as it allows you to implement this same behavior in multiple different ways, the abovc may work for EF but there will be different methods if you have an in memory repository (for example). This approach allows you to implement different implementations that fulfill the intent rather than restrict your repository to only act like EF.

C# EF / LINQ hack fix hitting perfomance? Other way of fixing?

I've been learning C# / LINQ / ASP.NET / MVC 3 / EF for a few months now comming from Java / Icefaces / Ibatis base (Real world uses .NET D;). I really enjoy LINQ / Entity Framework from the .NET Framework but I'm having a few issues understand what's really happening behind the scenes.
Here's my problem:
I'm using a AJAX / JSON fed jQuery datatable (that I highly recommend to anyone in need of a free web datatable system by the way). I have a method in my MVC3 application that returns a JSON result of the data needed by the table, doing the sorting and all. Everything is working nicely and smoothly. However, I'm having a concern with the "dirty" hack I had to do to make this work.
Here's the complete code:
//inEntities is the Entity Framework Database Context
//It includes the following entities:
// Poincon
// Horaire
// HoraireDetail
//Poincon, Horaire and HoraireDetail are "decorated" using the Metadata technic which
//adds properties methods and such to the Entity (Like getEmploye which you will see in
//the following snippet)
//
//The Entity Employe is not a database data and therefor not handled by the EF.
//Instead, it is a simple object with properties that applies Lazy Loading to get an
//Employe Name based off of his Employe ID in the Active Directory. An employe object
//can be constructed with his Employe ID which will expose the possibility of getting
//the Employe Name from the AD if needed.
[HttpPost]
public JsonResult List(FormCollection form)
{
String sEcho;
int iDisplayStart;
int iDisplayLength;
String sSearch;
int iSortingCols;
Dictionary<String, String> sorting;
try
{
sEcho = form["sEcho"];
iDisplayStart = int.Parse(form["iDisplayStart"]);
iDisplayLength = int.Parse(form["iDisplayLength"]);
sSearch = form["sSearch"];
iSortingCols = int.Parse(form["iSortingCols"]);
sorting = new Dictionary<string,string>();
for (int i = 0; i < iSortingCols; i++)
sorting.Add(form["mDataProp_" + form["iSortCol_" + i]].ToUpper(), form["sSortDir_" + i].ToUpper());
}
catch
{
HttpContext.Response.StatusCode = 500;
return null;
}
var qPoincon = inEntities.Poincons.AsEnumerable();
var lPoincon = qPoincon.Select(o => new
{
o.id,
emp = o.getEmploye(),
o.poinconStart,
o.poinconEnd,
o.commentaire,
o.codeExceptions
}).AsEnumerable();
//Search
lPoincon = lPoincon.Where(p => (p.emp.empNoStr.Contains(sSearch) || p.emp.empNom.Contains(sSearch) || (p.commentaire != null && p.commentaire.Contains(sSearch))));
//Keep count
int iTotalDisplayRecords = lPoincon.Count();
//Sorting
foreach(KeyValuePair<String,String> col in sorting)
{
switch (col.Key)
{
case "EMPNO":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.emp.empNo);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.emp.empNo);
break;
case "POINCONSTART":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.poinconStart);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.poinconStart);
break;
case "POINCONEND":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.poinconEnd);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.poinconEnd);
break;
case "COMMENTAIRE":
if (col.Value == "ASC")
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderBy(h => h.commentaire);
else
lPoincon = lPoincon.OrderByDescending(h => h.commentaire);
break;
}
}
//Paging
lPoincon = lPoincon.Skip(iDisplayStart).Take(iDisplayLength);
//Building Response
var jdt = new
{
iTotalDisplayRecords = iTotalDisplayRecords,
iTotalRecords = inEntities.Poincons.Count(),
sEcho = sEcho,
aaData = lPoincon
};
return Json(jdt);
}
As you can see, when I'm grabbing the entire list of "Poincons" from the EF and turning it into a Enumerable. From my current understanding, turning the LINQ query into a Enumerable "kills" the link to the EF, or in other words, will generate the SQL required to get that list at that point instead of keeping the LINQ data until the end and execute a percise query that will return only the data you require. After turning this LINQ Query into a Enumerable, I'm heavily filtering the LINQ (since there is paging, sorting, searching in the datatable). This leads me to thinkg that what my code is currently doing is "Grab all the "Poincons" from the database and put it into the web server's memory as a Enumerable, do your work with the Enumerable then serialize the result as a JSON string and send it to the client.
If I'm correct, the performance hit is quite heavy when you hit the couple thousand of entries (which will happen quite fast once in production... everytime an employe comes to work, it will add 1 entry. 100 employes, ~300 work days a year, you get the idea).
The reason for this hack is that the EF does not know what "getEmploye" method of "Poincon" is, therefor throwing an exception at runtime similar to this:
LINQ to Entities ne reconnaît pas la méthode « PortailNorclair.Models.Employe getEmploye() », et cette dernière ne peut pas être traduite en expression de magasin.
Approximated traduction (If anyone can let me know in a comment how to configure IIS / ASP.NET to display errors in english while keeping the globalization in a foreign language, I would be really grateful. French information about error messages is sometimes lacking):
LINQ to Entity does not recognize the method " PortailNorclair.Models.Employe getEmploye()" and the following could not be translated to a SQL expression.
The "getEmploye" method instances and returns a Employe object with the employe id found in the Poincon object. That Employe object has properties that "lazy loads" information like the employe name from the Active Directory.
So the question is: How can I avoid the performance hit from using .AsEnumerable() on the non-filtered list of objects?
Thanks a lot!

The "getEmploye" method instances and returns a Employe object with
the employe id found in the Poincon object. That Employe object has
properties that "lazy loads" information like the employe name from
the Active Directory.
You should be storing the Employee Name in the database, so you can then order, sort, skip and take in your Linq Query without having to load every employee object.
If empNoStr, empNom, and empNo were all in the database, you could retrieve just the records you want, and call getEmploye() (loading whatever else you need from active directory, or wherever) for each of those.

There are some classes on which your program performs its main work.
There are other classes which represent to database rows.
If you keep them separated, you can also separate actions you intend to occur in the database from actions you intend to perform locally. This makes it trivial to avoid loading the full table, when specific rows are required.
I see you're also doing Paging locally, while the database can do that and save your webserver some memory.

How can I correctly attach record object to data context in Entity Framework?

I need to switch data context for some records. So basically I have db context A and B, I fetch records using A, then I switch to B, alter records, and save them.
When I call Attach for B, I get exception that records are using by multiple data context, when I add Detach for A, I get exception, that records are not attached to A.
So how can I switch the data context?
Example
db_creator is creator of db context. Here I fetch the data (corrected version):
using (var db = db_creator.Create())
{
var coll = db.Mailing.Where(it => !it.mail_IsSent).ToList(); // (*)
coll.ForEach(it => db.Detach(it));
return coll;
}
(*) the mistake was caused by refactoring this piece, I created extra data context, and then later I tried to detach records from another one.
Now I would like to switch data context to new one, do some computation and modifications and save the records. coll is List of the records:
using (var db = db_creator.Create())
{
coll.ForEach(it => db.Mailing.Attach(it));
...
db.SaveChanges();
}

I recommend change your design and have ONE context at a time. (Based on your project type this could vary. Usually in web apps it's one context per http request.)
For example in a web application, you can do this like below:
protected MyContext Context
{
get
{
var context = HttpContext.Current.Items["MyContext"];
if (context == null)
{
context = new MyContext();
HttpContext.Current.Items.Add("MyContext", context);
}
return context as MyContext;
}
}
And dispose it in your Application_EndRequest:
app.EndRequest += (sender, args) =>
{
HttpContext.Current.Items.Remove("MyContext");
}
If you have multiple project types, then consider using an Ioc.
But if you still want to use two contexts, you can do as below(myEntity is your object you want to detach/attach):
if (context1.Entry(myEntity).State != EntityState.Detached);
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)context1).ObjectContext.Detach(myEntity);
}
context2.MyEntities.Attach(myEntity);

I have come to the conclusion that it's best (i.e. easier to avoid problems) to use ApplyCurrentValues instead of attaching. That is because when you call Attach there are several things going on that we don't know about, but which may surface in one way or the other through an exception. I prefer to do things the way I have control over what is done.
var myMailings = db_creator.Create().Mailing.Where(it => !it.mail_IsSent).ToList();
... // make modifications and retrieve coll a collection of Mailing objects
using (var db = db_creator.Create()) {
... // if you want to further modify the objects in coll you should do this before writing it to the context
foreach (Mailing it in coll) {
if (it.EntityKey != null) db.GetObjectByKey(it.EntityKey); // load entity
else db.Mailing.Single(x => x.YourId == it.YourId); // load the entity when EntityKey is not available, e.g. because it's a POCO
db.Mailing.ApplyCurrentValues(it); // sets the entity state to Modified
}
db.SaveChanges();
}
EDIT:
I tested the performance of this vs using Attach. It should be noted that for a simple table with an integer primary key, an int, a float and a string column for updating 1000 entries: the difference was 2.6s vs 0.27s, so this is significantly slower.
EDIT2:
A similar question was raised here. There the answer warned about using ApplyCurrentValues in conjunction with timestamp columns.
I also compared performance when loading the entity with db.GetObjectByKey(it.EntityKey) and there the performance difference is much smaller. ApplyCurrentValues then just takes 0.44s.