EF codefirst : Should I initialize navigation prop

问题:

I had seen some books(e.g programming entity framework code first Julia Lerman) define their domain classes (POCO) with no initialization of the navigation properties like:

public class User
{
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string UserName { get; set; }

    public virtual ICollection<Address> Address { get; set; }
    public virtual License License { get; set; }
}

some other books or tools (e.g Entity Framework Power Tools) when generates POCOs initializes the navigation properties of the the class, like:

public class User
{
    public User()
    {
        this.Addresses = new IList<Address>();
        this.License = new License();
    }
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string UserName { get; set; }

    public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses { get; set; }
    public virtual License License { get; set; }
}

Q1: Which one is better? why? Pros and Cons?

Edit:

public class License
{
    public License()
    {
        this.User = new User();
    }
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string Key { get; set; }
    public DateTime Expirtion { get; set; }

    public virtual User User { get; set; }
}

Q2: In second approach there would be stack overflow if the `License` class has a reference to `User` class too. It means we should have one-way reference.(?) How we should decide which one of the navigation properties should be removed?

回答1:

Collections: It doesn't matter.

There is a distinct difference between collections and references as navigation properties. A reference is an entity. A collections contains entities. This means that initializing a collection is meaningless in terms of business logic: it does not define an association between entities. Setting a reference does.

So it's purely a matter of preference whether or not, or how, you initialize embedded lists.

As for the "how", some people prefer lazy initialization:

private ICollection<Address> _addresses;

public virtual ICollection<Address> Addresses
{ 
    get { return this._addresses ?? (this._addresses = new HashSet<Address>());
}

It prevents null reference exceptions, so it facilitates unit testing and manipulating the collection, but it also prevents unnecessary initialization. The latter may make a difference when a class has relatively many collections. The downside is that it takes relatively much plumbing, esp. when compared to auto properties without initialization. Also, the advent of the null-propagation operator in C# has made it less urgent to initialize collection properties.

...unless explicit loading is applied

The only thing is that initializing collections makes it hard to check whether or not a collection was loaded by Entity Framework. If a collection is initialized, a statement like...

var users = context.Users.ToList();

...will create User objects having empty, not-null Addresses collections (lazy loading aside). Checking whether the collection is loaded requires code like...

var user = users.First();
var isLoaded = context.Entry(user).Collection(c => c.Addresses).IsLoaded;

If the collection is not initialized a simple null check will do. So when selective explicit loading is an important part of your coding practice, i.e. ...

if (/*check collection isn't loaded*/)
    context.Entry(user).Collection(c => c.Addresses).Load();

...it may be more convenient not to initialize collection properties.

Reference properties: Don't

Reference properties are entities, so assigning an empty object to them is meaningful.

Worse, if you initiate them in the constructor, EF won't overwrite them when materializing your object or by lazy loading. They will always have their initial values until you actively replace them. Worse still, you may even end up saving empty entities in the database!

And there's another effect: relationship fixup won't occcur. Relationship fixup is the process by which EF connects all entities in the context by their navigation properties. When a User and a Licence are loaded separately, still User.License will be populated and vice versa. Unless of course, if License was initialized in the constructor. This is also true for 1:n associations. If Address would initialize a User in its constructor, User.Addresses would not be populated!

Entity Framework core

Relationship fixup in Entity Framework core (2.1 at the time of writing) isn't affected by initialized reference navigation properties in constructors. That is, when users and addresses are pulled from the database separately, the navigation properties are populated.
However, lazy loading does not overwrite initialized reference navigation properties. So, in conclusion, also in EF-core initializing reference navigation properties in constructors may cause trouble. Don't do it. It doesn't make sense anyway,

回答2:

In all my projects I follow the rule - "Collections should not be null. They are either empty or have values."

First example is possible to have when creation of these entities is responsibility of third-part code (e.g. ORM) and you are working on a short-time project.

Second example is better, since

• you are sure that entity has all properties set
• you avoid silly NullReferenceException
• you make consumers of your code happier

People, who practice Domain-Driven Design, expose collections as read-only and avoid setters on them. (see What is the best practice for readonly lists in NHibernate)

Q1: Which one is better? why? Pros and Cons?

It is better to expose not-null colections since you avoid additional checks in your code (e.g. Addresses). It is a good contract to have in your codebase. But it os OK for me to expose nullable reference to single entity (e.g. License)

Q2: In second approach there would be stack overflow if the License class has a reference to User class too. It means we should have one-way reference.(?) How we should decide which one of the navigation properties should be removed?

When I developed data mapper pattern by myself I tryed to avoid bidirectional references and had reference from child to parent very rarely.

When I use ORMs it is easy to have bidirectional references.

When it is needed to build test-entity for my unit-tests with bidirectional reference set I follow the following steps:

1. I build parent entity with emty children collection.
2. Then I add evey child with reference to parent entity into children collection.

Insted of having parameterless constructor in License type I would make user property required.

public class License
{
    public License(User user)
    {
        this.User = user;
    }

    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string Key { get; set; }
    public DateTime Expirtion { get; set; }

    public virtual User User { get; set; }
}

回答3:

It's redundant to new the list, since your POCO is depending on Lazy Loading.

Lazy loading is the process whereby an entity or collection of entities is automatically loaded from the database the first time that a property referring to the entity/entities is accessed. When using POCO entity types, lazy loading is achieved by creating instances of derived proxy types and then overriding virtual properties to add the loading hook.

If you would remove the virtual modifier, then you would turn off lazy loading, and in that case your code no longer would work (because nothing would initialize the list).

Note that Lazy Loading is a feature supported by entity framework, if you create the class outside the context of a DbContext, then the depending code would obviously suffer from a NullReferenceException

HTH

回答4:

Q1: Which one is better? why? Pros and Cons?

The second variant when virtual properties are set inside an entity constructor has a definite problem which is called "Virtual member call in a constructor".

As for the first variant with no initialization of navigation properties, there are 2 situations depending on who / what creates an object:

1. Entity framework creates an object
2. Code consumer creates an object

The first variant is perfectly valid when Entity Framework creates a object, but can fail when a code consumer creates an object.

The solution to ensure a code consumer always creates a valid object is to use a static factory method:

1. Make default constructor protected. Entity Framework is fine to work with protected constructors.

2. Add a static factory method that creates an empty object, e.g. a User object, sets all properties, e.g. Addresses and License, after creation and returns a fully constructed User object

This way Entity Framework uses a protected default constructor to create a valid object from data obtained from some data source and code consumer uses a static factory method to create a valid object.

回答5:

I use the answer from this Why is my Entity Framework Code First proxy collection null and why can't I set it?

Had problems with constructor initilization. Only reason I do this is to make test code easier. Making sure collection is never null saves me constantly initialising in tests etc

回答6:

The other answers fully answer the question, but I'd like to add something since this question is still relevant and comes up in google searches.

When you use the "code first model from database" wizard in Visual Studio all collections are initialized like so:

public partial class SomeEntity
{
    [System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2214:DoNotCallOverridableMethodsInConstructors")]
    public SomeEntity()
    {
        OtherEntities = new HashSet<OtherEntity>();
    }

    public int Id { get; set; }

    [System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis.SuppressMessage("Microsoft.Usage", "CA2227:CollectionPropertiesShouldBeReadOnly")]
    public virtual ICollection<OtherEntity> OtherEntities { get; set; }
}

I tend to take wizard output as basically being an official recommendation from Microsoft, hence why I'm adding to this five-year-old question. Therefore, I'd initialize all collections as HashSets.

And personally, I think it'd be pretty slick to tweak the above to take advantage of C# 6.0's auto-property initializers:

    public virtual ICollection<OtherEntity> OtherEntities { get; set; } = new HashSet<OtherEntity>();