31

I'm using Identity Core 1.0 with ASP.NET MVC Core 1.0 and Entity Framework Core 1.0 to create a simple user registration system with this article as a starting point, and I am trying to add user roles. I can add user roles, but I'm unable to edit them. Here is the Edit action in the RolesController:

    [HttpPost]
    [ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
    public IActionResult Edit(IdentityRole role)
    {
        try
        {
            _db.Roles.Attach(role);
            _db.Entry(role).State = Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.EntityState.Modified;
            _db.SaveChanges();
            return RedirectToAction("Index");
        }
        catch (Exception ex)
        {
            Console.WriteLine(ex);
            return View();
        }
    }

Here is the form in the corresponding view:

@model Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework.IdentityRole
@{
    ViewBag.Title = "Edit";
}

<h2>Edit Role</h2>
<hr />
@using (Html.BeginForm())
{
    @Html.AntiForgeryToken()
    @Html.ValidationSummary(true)
    @Html.HiddenFor(model => model.Id)
    <div>Role name</div>
    <p>@Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Name)</p>
    <input type="submit" value="Save" />
}

The new role name does not save to the database, and I get the following exception: Database operation expected to affect 1 row(s) but actually affected 0 row(s). Data may have been modified or deleted since entities were loaded.

I was able to use this exact code (with the Microsoft.AspNet.Identity.EntityFramework dependency instead of EntityFrameworkCore) to edit database entries using EF 7, Identity 3, etc.

Any thoughts on why this code will not allow database entries to be modified?

Sampath
  • 63,341
  • 64
  • 307
  • 441
jmk22
  • 1,104
  • 4
  • 15
  • 27

17 Answers17

15

The reason is clearly stated in the exception.

Check the Id on the role object as you receive it on your Edit action and try to lookup that id in the database. The exception message you see states that, it is expecting to find a row with a matching Id of the object you attached, but it is not, so it is failing to do the update, since it could not locate a matching row to update it.

EDIT :

You are attaching the entity twice, remove the call to .Attach(role) and keep the line below it which is sufficient to add the object to the tracking context in a modified state.

//_db.Roles.Attach(role); //REMOVE THIS LINE !.
_db.Entry(role).State = Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.EntityState.Modified;

Beware that setting the state of the entry to modified will update all the property values upon calling .SaveChanges(), so in case you want to update only certain properties refer to this answer.

If this doesn't solve your problem, please check for any inner exceptions that you might've missed. Sometimes the exception messages don't make sense and mask the real problem which you might be able to find in the inner exception.

sm_
  • 2,572
  • 2
  • 17
  • 34
  • The ID of the role object being passed to the Edit action is the same as the ID of the role in the database. Is there an issue because the name of the entry is changing, so EF can't find the right entry in the database? – jmk22 Sep 13 '16 at 20:44
  • @jmk22 hmm i see that i missed something. Remove the .Attach() call, check my edit – sm_ Sep 13 '16 at 23:48
  • 1
    I removed the line, but get the same error (`Database operation expected to affect 1 row(s) but actually affected 0 row(s). Data may have been modified or deleted since entities were loaded.`), and the inner exception is null. It looks like EF might be looking for a role in the database with the _edited_ name, so it's not returning anything. – jmk22 Sep 15 '16 at 18:36
10

This could also happen if you try to update an entity which has new related entities.

For example, this code would throw an exception:

someEntity.AnotherEntity = new AnotherEntity();
dbContext.Update(someEntity);
dbContext.SaveChanges(); // Exception

Instead, do this:

someEntity.AnotherEntity = new AnotherEntity();
dbContext.AnotherEntitySet.Add(someEntity.AnotherEntity);
dbContext.Update(someEntity);
dbContext.SaveChanges(); // No Exception
Xpleria
  • 5,472
  • 5
  • 52
  • 66
  • Thanks, this fixed it for me! I only wanted to update the parent entity so I nulled all related navigation properties before the update and this fixed it! – Jason Landbridge Nov 03 '20 at 17:02
7

You can try as shown below.

[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public IActionResult Edit(IdentityRole role)
{
    try
    {
         _db.Entry(role).State = Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.EntityState.Modified;
        _db.SaveChanges();
        return RedirectToAction("Index");
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        Console.WriteLine(ex);
        return View();
    }
}

Note :

When _db.Entry(role).State = EntityState.Modified;

  • you are not only attaching the entity to the _db, you are also marking the whole entity as dirty.
  • When you do _db.SaveChanges(), EF will generate an update statement that will update all the fields of the entity.

When _db.Roles.Attach(role)

  • attaches the entity to the context without marking it dirty.
  • It is like _db.Entry(role).State = EntityState.Unchanged;.
  • unless you then proceed to update a property on the entity, the next time you call context.SaveChanges(), EF will not generate a database update for this entity.

i.e. If you need to generate a database update,you have to do like this :

_db.Roles.Attach(role); // State = Unchanged
role.RoleName = "Admin"; // State = Modified, and only the RoleName property is dirty
context.SaveChanges();
Sampath
  • 63,341
  • 64
  • 307
  • 441
  • I see. My thought here was that I only want to edit the name, and perhaps the name change was not letting EF find the correct object to edit. Either way, I've tried it both with and without the `Attach` line, and I still run into the same error. – jmk22 Sep 13 '16 at 20:49
4

After executing the Update or Delete, EF Core reads the number of rows that were affected.

SELECT [ExampleEntityId]
FROM [ExampleEntities]
WHERE @@ROWCOUNT = 1 AND
[ExampleEntityId] = scope_identity();

If your entities do not have IdentityColumn thats primary key, EF Core throws DbUpdateConcurrencyException.

In my case I added primary keys(and set them as identity) to related tables in database.

Ahmet Arslan
  • 5,380
  • 2
  • 33
  • 35
2

Your answers doesn't work for me. And I solved my error like this. Changed Model class proporties

[Key]
    [DatabaseGeneratedAttribute(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
    public string Id { get; set; }

after ı changed My mapping class

builder.Property(c => c.Id).HasColumnName("ID").IsRequired();

Last change is

 CustomerEntity thisrole = (from x in db.Customers
                          where x.Id == Id
                          select x).First();
            thisrole.Id = accountNum;
            thisrole.Name = name;
            thisrole.Phone = phone;
            thisrole.Email = email;
            thisrole.Address = address;
            db.SaveChanges();              
            return true;

I hope This solution works for someone.

Haktan Enes Biçer
  • 612
  • 1
  • 10
  • 13
2

In my case, the error was that I was generating entity IDs / primary keys in the code and Entity Framework wanted to additionally generate values ​​on the database side. It helped to specify the values ​​generated when creating the entity, and more specifically the lack of their generation.

Adnotation:

[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.None)]
public Guid Id { get; set; }

Fluent API:

e.HasKey(e => e.Id);
e.Property(e => e.Id).ValueGeneratedNever();
Krzysztofz01
  • 432
  • 5
  • 13
  • Working! In my case I changed my P-Keys from int to GUID and added Id = Guid.NewGuid(). So this trigger this error. I removed manual generating of Id and now EfCore automatically generates Id as GUID. Im using EfCore. – Александър К. Apr 29 '22 at 23:31
0

I have solved this by combining the two methods

var thisRole = _db.Roles.Where(r => r.Id.Equals(role.Id, 
StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase)).FirstOrDefault();
_db.Roles.Attach(thisRole);
thisRole.Name = role.Name;
_db.SaveChanges();
0

If you have a Trigger INSTEAD OF INSERT on the table, the Database cancel the operation and EntityFramework fire this error.

  • I'm having this issue. I have a trigger INSTEAD OF INSERT on a table and doesn't work but I have another trigger in the same way in other table and it works. I don't know what is happening. – julian zapata Feb 17 '20 at 22:41
0

Same error here, what ended up being the issue is I'm inserting while reusing the code for updating ...

  Role role = new Role();
  role.Value = input;
  context.Add(role);                    
  await context.SaveChangesAsync();

There's no state to be changed when inserting ...

Иво Недев
  • 1,570
  • 1
  • 20
  • 33
0

in mysql ,it needs a AUTO_INCREMENT ID

like this:

ALTER TABLE wfdbcore201test.wftransitioninstance MODIFY COLUMN ID int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT FIRST;

0

None of the accepted answers worked for me using Razor Pages. I ended up using an InputModel Input to fix it. (I have my own class for the roles).

    public class AppRole:IdentityRole<int> { }
 [BindProperty]
 public InputModel Input { get; set; }
 public class InputModel
 {
     [Required]
     public string Name { get; set; }

     public string NormalizedName=>Name.ToUpper();

     public int Id { get; set; }

     // Used to check for concurrency in the post method
     public string OriginalConcurrencyStamp { get; set; }

 }

Seeding the Input from the OnGet method.

 public IActionResult OnGet(int? id)
 {
      if (id == null)
      {
          return NotFound();
      }

      var appRole = _context.Roles.Find(id);

      if(appRole == null) { return NotFound(); }

      Input.Id = id.Value;
      Input.Name = appRole.Name;
      Input.OriginalConcurrencyStamp = appRole.ConcurrencyStamp;

      return Page();
  }

Then on the post method I 'Find' the role and update it there.

 public IActionResult OnPostAsync()
 {
     if (!ModelState.IsValid)
     {
         return Page();
     }

     var appRole = _context.Roles.Find(Input.Id);

     // The role has been deleted
     if(appRole == null)
     {
         ViewData["Error"] = "This Role has been deleted by someone else.\nReturn to the list.";
         return Page();
     }

     // the role has been changed by another user.
     if(appRole.ConcurrencyStamp != Input.OriginalConcurrencyStamp)
     {
         ViewData["Error"] = "This Role has been changed by someone else.\nReturn to the list.";
         return Page();
     }

     // no need to SaveChanges if there are no changes.
     var hasChanges = false;
     if(appRole.Name != Input.Name)
     {
         appRole.Name = Input.Name;
         hasChanges = true;
     }

     if(appRole.SortOrder != Input.SortOrder)
     {
         appRole.SortOrder = Input.SortOrder;
         hasChanges = true;
     }

     if(appRole.NormalizedName != Input.NormalizedName)
     {
         appRole.NormalizedName = Input.NormalizedName;
         hasChanges = true;
     }

     if(!hasChanges)
     {
         ViewData["Error"] = "No Changes Detected.";
         return Page();
     }

     appRole.ConcurrencyStamp = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();

     _context.Entry(appRole).State = EntityState.Modified;

     try
     {
         _context.SaveChanges();
     }
     catch (DbUpdateConcurrencyException ex)
     {
         if (!AppRoleExists(Input.Id))
         {
             return NotFound();
         }
         else { throw; }
     }

     return RedirectToPage("./Index");
 }

And my Edit.cshtml file looks like this.

@page
@model MyApp.Areas.Identity.Pages.Account.Manage.Roles.EditModel

@{
    ViewData["Title"] = "Edit";
    Layout = "~/Pages/Shared/_Layout.cshtml";
}

<h1>Edit</h1>

<h4>Role</h4>
<hr />
<div class="row">
    <div class="col-md-4">
        <form method="post">
            <div asp-validation-summary="ModelOnly" class="text-danger"></div>
            <input type="hidden" asp-for="Input.Id" />
            <input type="hidden" asp-for="Input.OriginalConcurrencyStamp" />
            <label class="text-danger">@ViewData["Error"]</label>
            <div class="form-group">
                <label asp-for="Input.Name" class="control-label"></label>
                <input asp-for="Input.Name" class="form-control" />
                <span asp-validation-for="Input.Name" class="text-danger"></span>
            </div>
            <div class="form-group">
                <input type="submit" value="Save" class="btn btn-primary" />

            </div>
        </form>
    </div>
</div>

<div>
    <a asp-page="./Index">Back to List</a>
</div>

@section Scripts {
    @{await Html.RenderPartialAsync("_ValidationScriptsPartial");}
}

KWarner
  • 11
  • 1
  • 4
0

In my case, the problem was that I tried to remove a value from a table without checking if that value actually existed:


public DbSet<AdminSettings> AdminSettingsTable { get; set; }

public AdminSettings AdminSettings
  {
    get
    {
      return AdminSettingsTable.FirstOrDefault();
    }
    set
    {
      // This if-statement prevents the crash
      if (AdminSettingsTable.Contains(value))
      {
        AdminSettingsTable.Remove(value);
      }
      SaveChanges();
      AdminSettingsTable.Add(value);
   }
}
Daniel Veihelmann
  • 1,275
  • 10
  • 13
0

I was getting this error in delete operation.

In my case, I was trying to delete a row and the rows related (foreign key relation) to it in other tables. It turned out an trigger was added in the DB to delete related rows if the parent is deleted. In case of deletion, make sure the rows you are trying to remove is exists or if you have any triggers added to delete rows related.

sasi reka
  • 173
  • 3
  • 15
0

Sometimes Timestamp(Sql Server) fields may cause the problem. Remove them from model class may fix the issue if they are not necessary.

Yun CHEN
  • 6,450
  • 3
  • 30
  • 33
0

A non-query based solution: In my case, double click on a button in my .Net Core application caused the cuncurrency, so I've added a code to click method of the button to make it idle for 100 ms. As I used the DevExpress, I've added the following code:

    function ButtonClick(e) {  
        setTimeout(function () {  
            e.SetEnabled(false);  
        }, 100);  
// the rest of the code
    } 

You may find other solutions for prevent the double click everywhere else.

Amir978
  • 857
  • 3
  • 15
  • 38
0

I had this error when fixing the new warning for nonnullable reference not initialized.

CS8618 - Non-nullable variable must contain a non-null value when exiting constructor. Consider declaring it as nullable.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/compiler-messages/nullable-warnings?f1url=%3FappId%3Droslyn%26k%3Dk(CS8618)#nonnullable-reference-not-initialized

Example class with warning looked like this:

public class BaseContainer
{
    public int Id { get; set; }

    public List<ContainerChild> ContainerChildren { get; set; } = new List<ContainerChild>();
}

public class ContainerChild
{
    public int Id { get; set; }

    public int BaseContainerId { get; set; }

    public BaseContainer BaseContainer { get; set; }
}

I then resolved the warning like this in ContainerChild:

public BaseContainer BaseContainer { get; set; } = new BaseContainer();

However when I then added a ContainerChild to BaseContainer I created a new BaseContainer instead.

var baseContainer = _dbContext.BaseContainer.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id == id);
var containerChild = new ContainerChild();
baseContainer.ContainerChildren.Add(containerChild);

Fixed by setting BaseContainer member to nullable reference type in ContainerChild like this:

public BaseContainer? BaseContainer { get; set; }
Ogglas
  • 62,132
  • 37
  • 328
  • 418
-1

For SQL Server, EF Core included a timestamp property in the Where clause, which I still don't get why. So I had to keep track of the primary key and the timestamp to re-attach the entity.

TL;DR: Check your (EF Core) generated SQL if there is something missing in the Where clause of your Update statement.

Example:

Entity:

CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Blog]
    [BlogID] [int] IDENTITY(0,1) NOT NULL,
    [sysTS] [timestamp] NOT NULL,
    [IsPublished] [bit] NOT NULL

public class Blog {
  public int BlogId { get; set; }   
  public byte[] SysTS { get; set; }
  public bool IsPublished { get; set; }
}

Code:

var blog = new Blog { IsPublished = false };
using(var context = CreateNewContext()) {
  context.Blog.Add(blog);
  await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
var blogId = blog.BlogID
// var blogSysTs = blog.SysTs; // this I had to track too

// ... do other stuff

// here also SysTS = blogSysTs was needed
var blog2 = new Blog { BlogID = blogId, IsPublished = true }; 
using(var context2 = CreateNewContext()) {
  var entry = context2.Blog.Attach(blog2);
  entry.Property(b => b.IsPublished).IsModified = true;
  await context2.SaveChangesAsync();
}

Which resultet in something like:

UPDATE Blog
SET IsPublished = @p1
WHERE BlogID = @p2 and SysTS IS NULL

Only with the SysTS tracked there was a legit update query:

UPDATE Blog
SET IsPublished = @p1
WHERE BlogID = @p2 and SysTS = @p3

I get that this certainly has to do with out SQL Server set up, I just can't figure out why. But the gist of it: Check your EF Core generated SQL queries to see, why the row wasn't updated.

Radall
  • 394
  • 4
  • 17
  • This isn't much of an answer if you don't know what's going on. It's not clear how your class model / database model were created and if you work code-first or database first. It's not as if EF core starts using a timestamp property out of the blue. – Gert Arnold Mar 23 '21 at 15:22
  • @GertArnold The answer lies in the TL;DR to check whether EF expects other columns in the Where clause which in my case explained why it couldn't affect the expected row. Edit: The tale about the timestamp was just an example. – Radall Mar 26 '21 at 09:05
  • Yeah, that reduces the answer to something that's good for a comment. The question isn't clear and shouldn't have been answered by anybody. All the "answers" here are no answers. They basically say: I had the same error. I wish everybody would only have asked more info before answering. "Look at the SQL query" could have been one of those comments. – Gert Arnold Mar 26 '21 at 11:08
  • Sorry you feel that way. But looking at the stats for this querstion I'd say it helped some people and I wanted to contribute since I came across this facing the same problem. – Radall Mar 26 '21 at 13:03
  • But I guess you're also right, it could have been simply a comment with the TL;DR – Radall Mar 26 '21 at 13:04