Stumbled onto this problem. My app wasn't returning fresh data from the database.
These seems to be 3 solutions:
Reload on select: first you select the object, then reload. Loading it twice if it's not cached?
Detach after use: if you forget to detach an object after use, it's going to cause bugs in completely separate parts of the application that are going to be extremely hard to track down.
Disposing the DbContext after use. Definitely seems like the way to go.
I was creating my DbContext instance in the Repository class. If the DbContext is declared at the Repository level, then I have no control over how it gets disposed. That's a no-no. If I create a new DbContext on every call, then I cannot call Select, modify data, and then call Update.
Seems like something is fundamentally missing in my Repository pattern.
After some research on fundamental Repository pattern, I found the solution: Unit of Work pattern alongside the Repository pattern.
This is an excellent article on the Unit of Work pattern
Or this article from Microsoft. What I currently have is the Repository further up in the page, and what's missing is the section "Implement a Generic Repository and a Unit of Work Class"
Basically, instead of injecting repositories into your services, you access all repositories via a UnitOfWork that you inject into your service. It will solve many problems.
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
private readonly ApplicationContext _context;
public UnitOfWork(ApplicationContext context)
{
_context = context;
Developers = new DeveloperRepository(_context);
Projects = new ProjectRepository(_context);
}
public IDeveloperRepository Developers { get; private set; }
public IProjectRepository Projects { get; private set; }
public int Complete()
{
return _context.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_context.Dispose();
}
}
Remains the question: how to create the IUnitOfWork instance?
If I create it in the class constructor to be injected just like the repository, then it gets created and destroyed exactly the same way and we're back to the same problem. In ASP.NET and MVC, class instances are short-lived so injecting in the constructor may be fine, but in Blazor and desktop apps, class instances are much more long-lived and it's more of a problem.
This article from Microsoft clearly states that Dependency Injection isn't suitable to manage the lifetime of DbContext in Blazor:
In Blazor Server apps, scoped service registrations can be problematic
because the instance is shared across components within the user's
circuit. DbContext isn't thread safe and isn't designed for concurrent
use. The existing lifetimes are inappropriate for these reasons:
- Singleton shares state across all users of the app and leads to
inappropriate concurrent use.
- Scoped (the default) poses a similar
issue between components for the same user.
- Transient results in a new
instance per request; but as components can be long-lived, this
results in a longer-lived context than may be intended.
They suggest using the Factory pattern, which can be implemented like this
/// <summary>
/// Creates instances of UnitOfWork. Repositories and UnitOfWork are not automatically injected through dependency injection,
/// and this class is the only one injected into classes to give access to the rest.
/// </summary>
public class UnitOfWorkFactory : IUnitOfWorkFactory
{
private readonly IDateTimeService _dateService;
private readonly DbContextOptions<PaymentsContext> _options;
public UnitOfWorkFactory(IDateTimeService dateService, DbContextOptions<PaymentsContext> options)
{
_dateService = dateService;
_options = options;
}
/// <summary>
/// Creates a new Unit of Work, which can be viewed as a transaction. It provides access to all data repositories.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>The new Unit of Work.</returns>
public IUnitOfWork Create() => new UnitOfWork(CreateContext(), _dateService);
/// <summary>
/// Creates a new DbContext.
/// </summary>
/// <returns>The new DbContext.</returns>
public PaymentsContext CreateContext() => new(_options);
}
Neither IWorkOfUnit nor any repository will be registered into the IoC container. Only IWorkOfUnitFactory.
And finally... how to share a transaction between various services?
I have a SetStatus method that updates the status field in the database. How is this method supposed to know whether it's a stand-alone operation or part of a larger transaction?
Since class-level dependency injection isn't suitable to manage and share the Work of Unit, then the only option is to pass it as parameters to the methods that need it.
I add an optional IUnitOfWork? workScope = null parameter to every method that needs it, and call Save only if this parameter is null. Here's an implementation.
public virtual async Task<TempOrder?> SetStatusAsync(int orderId, PaymentStatus status, IUnitOfWork? workScope = null)
{
using var unitOfWork = _workFactory.Create();
var work = workScope ?? unitOfWork;
var order = await work.Orders.GetByIdAsync(orderId);
if (order != null)
{
order.Status = status;
work.Orders.Update(order); // DateModified gets set here
if (workScope == null)
{
await work.SaveAsync();
}
}
return order;
}
Another option is to have IUnitOfWorkFactory.Create take the workScope parameter, and when set:
- Re-use the existing DbContext
- Do not dispose
- IUnitOfWork.Save won't submit
My final implementation can be used like this
public virtual async Task<TempOrder?> SetStatusAsync(int orderId, PaymentStatus status, IUnitOfWork? workScope = null)
{
using var unitOfWork = _workFactory.Create(workScope);
var order = await unitOfWork.Orders.GetByIdAsync(orderId);
if (order != null)
{
order.Status = status;
work.Orders.Update(order); // DateModified gets set here
await unitOfWork.SaveAsync(); // Ignored if workScope != null
}
return order;
}
Pheww! That bug was a rabbit hole. It's a pretty long solution but should solve it for good with a solid architecture.
