Entity-framework – Why is the Entity Framework Code First proxy collection null and why can’t I set it

collectionsentity-frameworkpocoproxies

I am using DBContext and have two classes whose properties are all virtual. I can see in the debugger that I am getting a proxy object when I query the context. However, a collection property is still null when I try to add to it. I thought that the proxy would ensure that collection is initialized.

Because my Poco object can be used outside of its data context, I added a check for the collection being null in the constructor and create it if necessary:

public class DanceStyle
{
    public DanceStyle()
    {
        if (DanceEvents == null)
        {
            DanceEvents = new Collection<DanceEvent>();
        }
    }
    ...
    public virtual ICollection<DanceEvent> DanceEvents { get; set; }
}

That works outside the data context but if I retrieve an object using a query, although the test is true, when I try to set it, I get following exception: 'The property 'DanceEvents' on type 'DanceStyle_B6089AE40D178593955F1328A70EAA3D8F0F01DDE9F9FBD615F60A34F9178B94' cannot be set because the collection is already set to an EntityCollection.'

I can see it is null and I cannot add to it, but neither can I set it to a collection because the proxy says it is already set. Therefore I cannot use it. I'm confused.

Here is the DanceEvent class:

public class DanceEvent
{
    public DanceEvent()
    {
        if (DanceStyles == null)
        {
            DanceStyles = new Collection<DanceStyle>();
        }
    }
    ...
    public virtual ICollection<DanceStyle> DanceStyles { get; set; }
}

I have omitted the other value-type properties from the code above. I have no other mappings for those classes in the context class.

Best Answer

As you correctly observed in the answer to your own question, removing the "virtual" keyword from the collection properties works around the problem, by preventing the Entity Framework from creating a change tracking proxy. However, this is not a solution for many people, because change tracking proxies can be really convenient and can help prevent issues when you forget to detect changes at the right places in your code.

A better approach would be to modify your POCO classes, so that they instantiate the collection properties in their get accessor, rather than in the constructor. Here's your POCO class, modified to allow change tracking proxy creation:

public class DanceEvent
{
    private ICollection<DanceStyle> _danceStyles;
    public virtual ICollection<DanceStyle> DanceStyles
    {
        get { return _danceStyles ?? (_danceStyles = new Collection<DanceStyle>()); }
        protected set { _danceStyles = value; }
    }
}

In the above code the collection property is no longer automatic, but rather has a backing field. It's better if you leave the setter protected, preventing any code (other than the proxy) from subsequently modifying these properties. You will notice that the constructor was no longer necessary and was removed.

Related Solutions

.net – Automapper : mapping issue with inheritance and abstract base class on collections with Entity Framework 4 Proxy Pocos

This answer comes 'a bit' late as I've just faced the same issue with EF4 POCO proxies.

I solved it using a custom converter that calls Mapper.DynamicMap<TDestination>(object source) to invoke the runtime type conversion, rather than the .Include<TOtherSource, TOtherDestinatio>().

It works fine for me.

In your case you would define the following converter:

class PaymentConverter : ITypeConverter<Payment, DtoPayment> {
    public DtoPayment Convert( ResolutionContext context ) {
        return Mapper.DynamicMap<DtoPayment>( context.SourceValue );
    }
}

And then:

Mapper.CreateMap<Payment, DtoPayment>().ConvertUsing<PaymentConverter>();
Mapper.CreateMap<CashPayment, DtoCashPayment>();
Mapper.CreateMap<CreditCardPayment, DtoCreditCardPayment>();

Entity-framework – The relationship could not be changed because one or more of the foreign-key properties is non-nullable

You should delete old child items thisParent.ChildItems one by one manually. Entity Framework doesn't do that for you. It finally cannot decide what you want to do with the old child items - if you want to throw them away or if you want to keep and assign them to other parent entities. You must tell Entity Framework your decision. But one of these two decisions you HAVE to make since the child entities cannot live alone without a reference to any parent in the database (due to the foreign key constraint). That's basically what the exception says.

Edit

What I would do if child items could be added, updated and deleted:

public void UpdateEntity(ParentItem parent)
{
    // Load original parent including the child item collection
    var originalParent = _dbContext.ParentItems
        .Where(p => p.ID == parent.ID)
        .Include(p => p.ChildItems)
        .SingleOrDefault();
    // We assume that the parent is still in the DB and don't check for null

    // Update scalar properties of parent,
    // can be omitted if we don't expect changes of the scalar properties
    var parentEntry = _dbContext.Entry(originalParent);
    parentEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(parent);

    foreach (var childItem in parent.ChildItems)
    {
        var originalChildItem = originalParent.ChildItems
            .Where(c => c.ID == childItem.ID && c.ID != 0)
            .SingleOrDefault();
        // Is original child item with same ID in DB?
        if (originalChildItem != null)
        {
            // Yes -> Update scalar properties of child item
            var childEntry = _dbContext.Entry(originalChildItem);
            childEntry.CurrentValues.SetValues(childItem);
        }
        else
        {
            // No -> It's a new child item -> Insert
            childItem.ID = 0;
            originalParent.ChildItems.Add(childItem);
        }
    }

    // Don't consider the child items we have just added above.
    // (We need to make a copy of the list by using .ToList() because
    // _dbContext.ChildItems.Remove in this loop does not only delete
    // from the context but also from the child collection. Without making
    // the copy we would modify the collection we are just interating
    // through - which is forbidden and would lead to an exception.)
    foreach (var originalChildItem in
                 originalParent.ChildItems.Where(c => c.ID != 0).ToList())
    {
        // Are there child items in the DB which are NOT in the
        // new child item collection anymore?
        if (!parent.ChildItems.Any(c => c.ID == originalChildItem.ID))
            // Yes -> It's a deleted child item -> Delete
            _dbContext.ChildItems.Remove(originalChildItem);
    }

    _dbContext.SaveChanges();
}

Note: This is not tested. It's assuming that the child item collection is of type ICollection. (I usually have IList and then the code looks a bit different.) I've also stripped away all repository abstractions to keep it simple.

I don't know if that is a good solution, but I believe that some kind of hard work along these lines must be done to take care of all kinds of changes in the navigation collection. I would also be happy to see an easier way of doing it.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

.net – Automapper : mapping issue with inheritance and abstract base class on collections with Entity Framework 4 Proxy Pocos

Entity-framework – The relationship could not be changed because one or more of the foreign-key properties is non-nullable

Related Topic