Meanwhile I came up with the following simple solution:
using var uow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true);
var abpTenant = await _abpTenantManager.CreateAsync(input.AbpTenant.Name, input.AbpTenant.EditionId);
input.AbpTenant.MapExtraPropertiesTo(abpTenant);
var tenant = ObjectMapper.Map<CreateTenantDto, Tenant>(input);
tenant.AbpTenant = abpTenant;
var newTenant = await _tenantRepository.InsertAsync(tenant);
await uow.CompleteAsync();
return ObjectMapper.Map<Tenant, TenantDto>(newTenant);
Seems like it works - it is enough to use sole InsertAsync for our Tenant entity, reference AbpTenant entry is inserted automatically, since it's being tracked by uow IUnitOfWork instance, right?
I have also checked the scenario when something is wrong with inserting our Tenant entity - AbpTenant is not inserted either. But the question is - when do I need to use isTransactional: true here? Is it when I have several repository CRUD operations?? Please explain.
Another question is regarding your repositories. I have noticed you never 'play' with CurrentValues.SetValues in DbConext, but always use Update call, so ALL fields are always updated even if not changed. Any reason for that?
UPDATE: Summarizing, I can tell that everything looks fine as long as I use don't use isTransactional: true. For instance, this works in positive scenario:
using var tenantUow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true);
var abpTenant = tenant.AbpTenant;
await _tenantRepository.DeleteAsync(tenant);
await _abpTenantRepository.HardDeleteAsync(abpTenant);
await tenantUow.CompleteAsync();
BUT if something is WRONG with second delete - first delete comes through (not rolled back).
If I use isTransactional: true and intentionally fail second delete for test - the operation just hangs (DB lock):
using var tenantUow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true, isTransactional: true);
var abpTenant = tenant.AbpTenant;
await _tenantRepository.DeleteAsync(tenant);
await _abpTenantRepository.HardDeleteAsync(abpTenant);
await tenantUow.CompleteAsync();
To workaround this, I had to create custom delete method in Tenant repository and made use of TransactionScope
Thank you for the suggestion.
I have tried it, but I bumped into the same issue as already described - using ABP TenantService directly, without implementing a custom one: first INSERT operation was pretty long, but succeeded. However, when I tried to insert another Tenant - it stuck with the same row lock notification (see the screenshot above).
BTW, nested transaction (using two nested IOW) also does not resolve the problem.
I understand that transaction commit when calling CompleteAsync MUST release all the locks, but for some reason it does not work as expected.
P.S. This bug is present in ABP Framework 3.0.5 as well.
P.S.2. BTW - I think Repository needs to be used, not AppService. When I use TenantAppService - the first insert does not rollback if second one fails.
Hi, our business model requires one user to belong to several tenants. So we have created accounts for the same user, where each account has the same user name, but different tenant id.
Hi. To extend the existing ABP tenants / users functionality in the system, we had to create corresponding tables / entities which relate 1:1 to ABP one:
//Our Tenant class
using AbpTenant = Volo.Saas.Tenant;
namespace XXX.Tenants {
public class Tenant : LogEntity {
...
public Guid AbpId { get; set; }
public AbpTenant AbpTenant { get; set; }`
...
//OnModelCreating
...
builder.Entity<Tenant>()
.HasOne(x => x.AbpTenant)
.WithOne()
.HasPrincipalKey<Volo.Saas.Tenant>(x => x.Id)
.HasForeignKey<Tenant>(x => x.AbpId);
...
builder.Entity<Tenant>(b => {
b.ToTable("OUR_TENANT");
b.ConfigureByConvention();
b.HasKey(x => x.Id);
b.Property(x => x.Id).HasColumnName("C_TENANT").IsRequired().ValueGeneratedNever();
...
b.Property(x => x.AbpId).HasColumnName("C_ABP_TENANT").IsRequired();
...
We had to create own client-side infrastructure in Angular app as well, to process these composite entities:
//Angular Tenants model
export interface State {
tenants: Response;
tenantsLookup: Common.LookupResponse<number>;
}
export interface Response {
items: Tenants.TenantWithNavigationProperties[];
totalCount: number;
}
export interface TenantsQueryParams extends ABP.PageQueryParams {
filterText?: string;
idMin?: number;
idMax?: number;
shortName?: string;
fullName?: string;
companyId?: number;
masterId?: number;
abpId?: string;
isMaster?: boolean;
}
export interface AbpTenant {
id: string;
name: string;
editionId: string;
}
export interface AbpTenantCreateDto {
name: string;
editionId: string;
adminEmailAddress: string;
adminPassword: string;
}
export interface AbpTenantUpdateDto {
name: string;
editionId: string;
}
export interface TenantWithNavigationProperties {
id: number;
shortName: string;
fullName: string;
comment: string;
companyId: number;
masterId: number;
abpId: string;
isMaster: boolean;
abpTenant: AbpTenant;
}
export interface TenantCreateDto {
id: number;
shortName: string;
fullName: string;
comment: string;
companyId: number;
masterId?: number;
abpId?: string;
isMaster: boolean;
abpTenant: AbpTenantCreateDto;
}
export interface TenantUpdateDto {
id: number;
shortName: string;
fullName: string;
comment: string;
companyId: number;
masterId?: number;
abpId: string;
isMaster: boolean;
abpTenant: AbpTenantUpdateDto;
}
To circumvent potential issues with compatibility, we have decided to handle CRUD operations using two repositories - ABP ITenantRepository and IIdentityUserRepository. Unfortunately, it raised a major transaction issue: row lock when trying to create (not tested thouroughly on other operations, but sure the issue exists there as well) a new tenant. We have tried different approaches (including using ITenantAppService directly instead of ITenantRepository) to resolve it, but none of them worked:
//using ITenantAppService
using var uow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true, isTransactional: true);
var abpTenantDto = await _abpTenantAppService.CreateAsync(input.AbpTenant);
var tenant = ObjectMapper.Map<CreateTenantDto, Tenant>(input);
tenant.AbpId = abpTenantDto.Id; //causes row lock SOMETIMES
var newTenant = await _tenantRepository.InsertAsync(tenant);
await uow.CompleteAsync(); //this operations hangs SOMETIMES because of row lock
return ObjectMapper.Map<Tenant, TenantDto>(newTenant);
//using ITenantRepository
using var uow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true, isTransactional: true);
var abpTenant = await _abpTenantManager.CreateAsync(input.AbpTenant.Name, input.AbpTenant.EditionId);
input.AbpTenant.MapExtraPropertiesTo(abpTenant);
var newAbpTenant = await _abpTenantRepository.InsertAsync(abpTenant);
var tenant = ObjectMapper.Map<CreateTenantDto, Tenant>(input);
tenant.AbpId = abpTenant.Id; //causes row lock ALWAYS
var newTenant = await _tenantRepository.InsertAsync(tenant);
await uow.CompleteAsync(); //this operations hangs ALWAYS because of row lock
return ObjectMapper.Map<Tenant, TenantDto>(newTenant);
Now we use two separate commits (ABP tenant, then - our tenant) as a workaround (deleting the first entry if first commit failed), which of course is not good at all and is just a temporary solution:
#region ABP tenant commit
using var abpTenantUow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true);
Tenant newTenant = null;
var abpTenant = await _abpTenantManager.CreateAsync(input.AbpTenant.Name, input.AbpTenant.EditionId);
input.AbpTenant.MapExtraPropertiesTo(abpTenant);
var newAbpTenant = await _abpTenantRepository.InsertAsync(abpTenant);
await abpTenantUow.CompleteAsync();
#endregion ABP tenant commit
#region Tenant commit
using var tenantUow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true);
var tenant = ObjectMapper.Map<CreateTenantDto, Tenant>(input);
tenant.AbpId = abpTenant.Id;
newTenant = await _tenantRepository.InsertAsync(tenant);
tenantUow.Failed += async (sender, args) =>
{
using var abpTenantDeleteUow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true);
await _abpTenantRepository.HardDeleteAsync(abpTenant);
await abpTenantDeleteUow.CompleteAsync();
};
await tenantUow.CompleteAsync();
#endregion Tenant commit
Here is the sessions screenshot displaying the row lock when trying to use one transaction:
Could you please help us to resolve transaction issue in the first place and also suggest how to handle two-tenant-approach in the most correct way on both back-end and front-end side?
Saying honestly, not a very good solution, imho. Usually DTO is just a bunch of fields and should not contain some functionality. Handling all the logic in OnModelCreating looks fine and logical. So - since it's not possible to get new data straight from update object - I think I will have to re-read the entity.
OK, thanks, now I know the property values not changed, but parameter values instead. But what do you mean by DTO normalization? Carry on some operations on DTOs? But if so - it's easier just to re-read the entity to get correct up-to-date values.
I wonder why UpdateAsync returns INPUT data, even if the input data has been changed? For instance, I have the space truncating rule for my entity:
b.Property(x => x.Domain)
.HasConversion(new ValueConverter<string, string>(v => v.Trim(), v => v.Trim()))
.HasColumnName("C_DOMAIN").HasMaxLength(DbConsts.DomainMaxLength);
Despite this fact, the method returns INPUT data which does not have truncation:
public async Task<ModuleDto> UpdateAsync(ModuleKeyDto id, UpdateModuleDto input)
{
var module = await _moduleRepository.GetAsync(m => m.ApplicationId == id.ApplicationId && m.ModuleId == id.ModuleId);
if (module == null)
{
throw new UserFriendlyException("Module not found", ErrorCodes.NotFound);
}
ObjectMapper.Map(input, module);
var updatedModule = await _moduleRepository.UpdateAsync(module); // updatedModule container non-truncated value that was present in module!!!
await CurrentUnitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();
return ObjectMapper.Map<Module, ModuleDto>(updatedModule);
}
Looks like a bug? I can re-read the entity and it then will look allright, but don't want to make an extra trip to DB.
I see now... But is dotnet-ef tool the same thing as Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools package? So basically I can use PM commands add-migration / script-migration -from 0 and so on instead? I just need to leave only ABP-related tables inside CentralToolsMigrationsDbContext.OnModelCreating method.
I've tried that (I used EntityFrameworkCore project as a base and added the Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design reference as asked by the tool). After running migration tool, I'm getting
Unable to create an object of type 'XXXXDbContext' //this is the class inherited from AbpDbContext<XXXXDbContext>
Hi,
we are not planning to use DB migration for our project tables - we have predefined DB tables structure, which will be changed by applying SQL scripts and the code just must be in-sync with it. At the same time, we understand DB migration mechanism is used in ABP Framework solution to create default tables (ABP[XXX], IDENTITYSERVER[XXX]) - so when ABP Framework gets updated, these tables might be updated accordingly.
Could you please suggest the best approach to use in the solution? Is it possible to go without DbMigration-related projects at all? Or it needs to be some selective migration? How to set it up?