I just started using the Entity Framework 1.0 recently and believe I am beginning to feel the pains everyone is talking about. I'm trying to use best practices so I have a set of DTO that get mapped to and from my Entities via AutoMapper.
The real catch is when I'm trying to update an object. The first gotcha was that I could not find a way to create a new entity, transfer the data from my DTO, and still have the entity ObjectContext realize that it has been changed. I used the following code:
public VideoDTO UpdateVideo(VideoDTO pVideo)
{
Video video = new Video();
Mapper.Map(pVideo, video);
context.Attach(video); //Successfully attaches
context.ApplyPropertyChanges("Videos", video); // no changes made as far as entity knows b/c it was attached in it's updated state
context.SaveChanges(); //doesn't save the entity
return pVideo;
}
I then figured, perhaps I need to just grab the entity from the database first, attach to the context, call the Map method on Mapper, then call SaveChanges. Here what I did:
public VideoDTO UpdateVideo(VideoDTO pVideo)
{
Video video = context.Videos.Where(v => v.VideoId == pVideo.VideoId).FirstOrDefault();
Mapper.Map(pVideo, video); //Error here: Can't change VideoId value on Video entity
//context.Attach(video);
//context.ApplyPropertyChanges("Videos", video);
context.SaveChanges();
return pVideo;
}
Now we get to the lovely EF issue of not being allowed to change the property, VideoId, because it's used by the EntityKey property on the Video entity. Lovely. I had setup the mappings so that when I mapped from my DTO to an EF Entity, the EntityKey property would get a value. Now I need a way to make an exception to that mapping rule, but have no clue where to begin. I suppose I could create a brand new Mapping rule right in this method and set the EntityKey & VideoId properties to be ignored, but that seems pretty sloppy. Furthermore, I'm not sure a mapping created at this point would stick. If it overrode the initial setup that allowed the DTO to map a value to the EntityKey on the entity, that would backfire in a whole different way.
Anyone have a better idea?