247

Here's the table

Users

UserId
UserName
Password
EmailAddress

and the code..

public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password){
//code to update the password..
}
1
  • 37
    By Password, you mean hashed password, right? :-) Commented Oct 5, 2016 at 1:21

17 Answers 17

450

Update: If you're using EF Core 7.0 or above, see this answer.

Ladislav's answer updated to use DbContext (introduced in EF 4.1):

public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password)
{
    var user = new User() { Id = userId, Password = password };
    using (var db = new MyEfContextName())
    {
        db.Users.Attach(user);
        db.Entry(user).Property(x => x.Password).IsModified = true;
        db.SaveChanges();
    }
}
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

20 Comments

I was only able to make this code work by adding db.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false; before db.SaveChanges() ?
Which namespace to include to use db.Entry(user).Property(x => x.Password).IsModified = true; and not db.Entry(user).Property("Password").IsModified = true;
This approach throws an OptimisticConcurencyException when the table has a timestamp field.
I think is worth mention that if you are using db.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false; you might want to keep validating the field you are updating: if (db.Entry(user).Property(x => x.Password).GetValidationErrors().Count == 0)
You need to set ValidateOnSaveEnabled to false if you have required fields in your table that you are not providing during your update
|
60

New EF Core 7 native feature — ExecuteUpdate:

Finally! After a long wait, EF Core 7.0 now has a natively supported way to run UPDATE (and also DELETE) statements while also allowing you to use arbitrary LINQ queries (.Where(u => ...)), without having to first retrieve the relevant entities from the database: The new built-in method called ExecuteUpdate — see "What's new in EF Core 7.0?".

ExecuteUpdate is precisely meant for these kinds of scenarios, it can operate on any IQueryable instance, and lets you update specific columns on any number of rows, while always issuing a single UPDATE statement behind the scenes, making it as efficient as possible.

Usage:

Let's take OP's example — i.e. updating the password column of a specific user:

dbContext.Users
    .Where(u => u.Id == someId)
    .ExecuteUpdate(b =>
        b.SetProperty(u => u.Password, "NewPassword")
    );

As you can see, calling ExecuteUpdate requires you to make calls to the SetProperty method, to specify which property to update, and also what new value to assign to it.

EF Core will translate this into the following UPDATE statement:

UPDATE [u]
    SET [u].[Password] = "NewPassword"
FROM [Users] AS [u]
WHERE [u].[Id] = someId

Also, ExecuteDelete for deleting rows:

There's also a counterpart to ExecuteUpdate called ExecuteDelete, which, as the name implies, can be used to delete a single or multiple rows at once without having to first fetch them.

Usage:

// Delete users that haven't been active in 2022:
dbContext.Users
    .Where(u => u.LastActiveAt.Year < 2022)
    .ExecuteDelete();

Similar to ExecuteUpdate, ExecuteDelete will generate DELETE SQL statements behind the scenes — in this case, the following one:

DELETE FROM [u]
FROM [Users] AS [u]
WHERE DATEPART(year, [u].[LastActiveAt]) < 2022

Other notes:

  • Keep in mind that both ExecuteUpdate and ExecuteDelete are "terminating", meaning that the update/delete operation will take place as soon as you call the method. You're not supposed to call dbContext.SaveChanges() afterwards.
  • If you're curious about the SetProperty method, and you're confused as to why ExectueUpdate doesn't instead receive a member initialization expression (e.g. .ExecuteUpdate(new User { Email = "..." }), then refer to this comment (and the surrounding ones) on the GitHub issue for this feature.
  • Furthermore, if you're curious about the rationale behind the naming, and why the prefix Execute was picked (there were also other candidates), refer to this comment, and the preceding (rather long) conversation.
  • Both methods also have async equivalents, named ExecuteUpdateAsync, and ExecuteDeleteAsync respectively.

3 Comments

This does not work on table-per-type mapping strategy unfortunately 'ExecuteDelete'/'ExecuteUpdate' operations on hierarchies mapped as TPT is not supported. See https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=2101038 for more information.
Well I guess at least we now have the option, but the syntax feels kind of clumsy and long winded, especially needing two variables for the same entity that have to be named differently (b and u in your case)
@O'Rooney b is the "builder", u is the entity. They're not actually of the same type. Also, see this comment for why a "simpler" syntax wasn't chosen.
54

You can tell which properties have to be updated in this way:

public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password)
{
  var user = new User { Id = userId, Password = password };
  using (var context = new ObjectContext(ConnectionString))
  {
    var users = context.CreateObjectSet<User>();
    users.Attach(user);
    context.ObjectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(user)
           .SetModifiedProperty("Password");
    context.SaveChanges();
  }
}

1 Comment

ObjectStateManager is not available for DBContext
31

In Entity Framework Core, Attach returns the entry, so all you need is:

var user = new User { Id = userId, Password = password };
db.Users.Attach(user).Property(x => x.Password).IsModified = true;
db.SaveChanges();

1 Comment

And vice versa the usage of Entry implies attaching the entity.
23

You have basically two options:

  • go the EF way all the way, in that case, you would
    • load the object based on the userId provided - the entire object gets loaded
    • update the password field
    • save the object back using the context's .SaveChanges() method

In this case, it's up to EF how to handle this in detail. I just tested this, and in the case I only change a single field of an object, what EF creates is pretty much what you'd create manually, too - something like:

`UPDATE dbo.Users SET Password = @Password WHERE UserId = @UserId`

So EF is smart enough to figure out what columns have indeed changed, and it will create a T-SQL statement to handle just those updates that are in fact necessary.

  • you define a stored procedure that does exactly what you need, in T-SQL code (just update the Password column for the given UserId and nothing else - basically executes UPDATE dbo.Users SET Password = @Password WHERE UserId = @UserId) and you create a function import for that stored procedure in your EF model and you call this function instead of doing the steps outlined above

2 Comments

@marc-s Actually you don't have to load the entire object!
Mind any more explanations on why you "don't have" to load it ? How is it done ?
15

While searching for a solution to this problem, I found a variation on GONeale's answer through Patrick Desjardins' blog:

public int Update(T entity, Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties)
{
  DatabaseContext.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Unchanged;
  foreach (var property in properties)
  {
    var propertyName = ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(property);
    DatabaseContext.Entry(entity).Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
  }
  return DatabaseContext.SaveChangesWithoutValidation();
}

"As you can see, it takes as its second parameter an expression of a function. This will let use this method by specifying in a Lambda expression which property to update."

...Update(Model, d=>d.Name);
//or
...Update(Model, d=>d.Name, d=>d.SecondProperty, d=>d.AndSoOn);

( A somewhat similar solution is also given here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/5749469/2115384 )

The method I am currently using in my own code, extended to handle also (Linq) Expressions of type ExpressionType.Convert. This was necessary in my case, for example with Guid and other object properties. Those were 'wrapped' in a Convert() and therefore not handled by System.Web.Mvc.ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText.

public int Update(T entity, Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties)
{
    DbEntityEntry<T> entry = dataContext.Entry(entity);
    entry.State = EntityState.Unchanged;
    foreach (var property in properties)
    {
        string propertyName = "";
        Expression bodyExpression = property.Body;
        if (bodyExpression.NodeType == ExpressionType.Convert && bodyExpression is UnaryExpression)
        {
            Expression operand = ((UnaryExpression)property.Body).Operand;
            propertyName = ((MemberExpression)operand).Member.Name;
        }
        else
        {
            propertyName = System.Web.Mvc.ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(property);
        }
        entry.Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
    }

    dataContext.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
    return dataContext.SaveChanges();
}

3 Comments

When I use this it gives me following error, Cannot convert Lambda expression to Type 'Expression<Func<RequestDetail,object>> [] ' because it is not a delegate type
@ImranRizvi, you simply need to update the parameters to: public int Update(T entity, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties) NOTE the params keyword before expression
Probably doesn't exist back in 2013 but today there is a overload that accept Expression<Func<T, TValue>> selector. You don't need to get property name anymore.
14

i'm using this:

entity:

public class Thing 
{
    [Key]
    public int Id { get; set; }
    public string Info { get; set; }
    public string OtherStuff { get; set; }
}

dbcontext:

public class MyDataContext : DbContext
{
    public DbSet<Thing > Things { get; set; }
}

accessor code:

MyDataContext ctx = new MyDataContext();

// FIRST create a blank object
Thing thing = ctx.Things.Create();

// SECOND set the ID
thing.Id = id;

// THIRD attach the thing (id is not marked as modified)
db.Things.Attach(thing); 

// FOURTH set the fields you want updated.
thing.OtherStuff = "only want this field updated.";

// FIFTH save that thing
db.SaveChanges();

3 Comments

I get entity validation errors when I try this, but it sure looks cool.
Does not work this method!!!: maybe you need to give more details how to use it!!! - this is the error: "Attaching an entity of type 'Domain.Job' failed because another entity of the same type already has the same primary key value. This can happen when using the 'Attach' method or setting the state of an entity to 'Unchanged' or 'Modified' if any entities in the graph have conflicting key values. This may be because some entities are new and have not yet received database-generated key values."
Perfec! Check my answer to see flexible approach for any model!
8

In EntityFramework Core 2.x there is no need for Attach:

 // get a tracked entity
 var entity = context.User.Find(userId);
 entity.someProp = someValue;
 // other property changes might come here
 context.SaveChanges();

Tried this in SQL Server and profiling it:

exec sp_executesql N'SET NOCOUNT ON;
UPDATE [User] SET [someProp] = @p0
WHERE [UserId] = @p1;
SELECT @@ROWCOUNT;

',N'@p1 int,@p0 bit',@p1=1223424,@p0=1

Find ensures that already loaded entities do not trigger a SELECT and also automatically attaches the entity if needed (from the docs):

Finds an entity with the given primary key values. If an entity with the given primary key values is being tracked by the context, then it is returned immediately without making a request to the database. Otherwise, a query is made to the database for an entity with the given primary key values and this entity, if found, is attached to the context and returned. If no entity is found, then null is returned.

1 Comment

Doing a .Find() still returns the entity with all its data fields from what I can tell. So if you're looking to not query the entire entity and only update 1 field, this is not the solution.
7

I'm late to the game here, but this is how I am doing it, I spent a while hunting for a solution I was satisified with; this produces an UPDATE statement ONLY for the fields that are changed, as you explicitly define what they are through a "white list" concept which is more secure to prevent web form injection anyway.

An excerpt from my ISession data repository:

public bool Update<T>(T item, params string[] changedPropertyNames) where T 
  : class, new()
{
    _context.Set<T>().Attach(item);
    foreach (var propertyName in changedPropertyNames)
    {
        // If we can't find the property, this line wil throw an exception, 
        //which is good as we want to know about it
        _context.Entry(item).Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
    }
    return true;
}

This could be wrapped in a try..catch if you so wished, but I personally like my caller to know about the exceptions in this scenario.

It would be called in something like this fashion (for me, this was via an ASP.NET Web API):

if (!session.Update(franchiseViewModel.Franchise, new[]
    {
      "Name",
      "StartDate"
  }))
  throw new HttpResponseException(new HttpResponseMessage(HttpStatusCode.NotFound));

4 Comments

So your better solution is what Elisa? You should explicitly state what properties you allow to be updated (just like the white list required for ASP.NET MVC's UpdateModel command), that way you ensure hacker form injection cannot occur and they cannot update fields they aren't allowed to update. If however somebody can convert the string array to some sort of lambda expressions parameter and work with it in the Update<T>, great
@GONeale - Just passing through. Someone's cracked it using Lambdas!
@Elisa It can be improved by using Func<T, List<object>> instead of string[]
Even later to the game, and perhaps this is much more recent syntax, but var entity=_context.Set<T>().Attach(item); followed by entity.Property(propertyName).IsModified = true; in the loop should work.
6

Entity framework tracks your changes on objects that you queried from database via DbContext. For example if you DbContext instance name is dbContext

public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password){
     var user = dbContext.Users.FirstOrDefault(u=>u.UserId == userId);
     user.password = password;
     dbContext.SaveChanges();
}

3 Comments

And how should the view look like in this case?
This is wrong because it would save entire User object with changed password.
that is true, but the rest of the User object will be the same as it was previously in the context, only thing that will possibly be different is the password so its essentially only updating the password.
3

I know this is an old thread but I was also looking for a similar solution and decided to go with the solution @Doku-so provided. I'm commenting to answer the question asked by @Imran Rizvi , I followed @Doku-so link that shows a similar implementation. @Imran Rizvi's question was that he was getting an error using the provided solution 'Cannot convert Lambda expression to Type 'Expression> [] ' because it is not a delegate type'. I wanted to offer a small modification I made to @Doku-so's solution that fixes this error in case anyone else comes across this post and decides to use @Doku-so's solution.

The issue is the second argument in the Update method,

public int Update(T entity, Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties). 

To call this method using the syntax provided...

Update(Model, d=>d.Name, d=>d.SecondProperty, d=>d.AndSoOn); 

You must add the 'params' keyword in front of the second arugment as so.

public int Update(T entity, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties)

or if you don't want to change the method signature then to call the Update method you need to add the 'new' keyword, specify the size of the array, then finally use the collection object initializer syntax for each property to update as seen below.

Update(Model, new Expression<Func<T, object>>[3] { d=>d.Name }, { d=>d.SecondProperty }, { d=>d.AndSoOn });

In @Doku-so's example he is specifying an array of Expressions so you must pass the properties to update in an array, because of the array you must also specify the size of the array. To avoid this you could also change the expression argument to use IEnumerable instead of an array.

Here is my implementation of @Doku-so's solution.

public int Update<TEntity>(LcmsEntities dataContext, DbEntityEntry<TEntity> entityEntry, params Expression<Func<TEntity, object>>[] properties)
     where TEntity: class
    {
        entityEntry.State = System.Data.Entity.EntityState.Unchanged;

        properties.ToList()
            .ForEach((property) =>
            {
                var propertyName = string.Empty;
                var bodyExpression = property.Body;
                if (bodyExpression.NodeType == ExpressionType.Convert
                    && bodyExpression is UnaryExpression)
                {
                    Expression operand = ((UnaryExpression)property.Body).Operand;
                    propertyName = ((MemberExpression)operand).Member.Name;
                }
                else
                {
                    propertyName = System.Web.Mvc.ExpressionHelper.GetExpressionText(property);
                }

                entityEntry.Property(propertyName).IsModified = true;
            });

        dataContext.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;

        return dataContext.SaveChanges();
    }

Usage:

this.Update<Contact>(context, context.Entry(modifiedContact), c => c.Active, c => c.ContactTypeId);

@Doku-so provided a cool approach using generic's, I used the concept to solve my issue but you just can't use @Doku-so's solution as is and in both this post and the linked post no one answered the usage error questions.

1 Comment

I was working on your solution when program passes line entityEntry.State = EntityState.Unchanged; all updated values in parameter entityEntry get revert, so no changes are saved, can you please help on it, thanks
1

Combining several suggestions I propose the following:

    async Task<bool> UpdateDbEntryAsync<T>(T entity, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] properties) where T : class
    {
        try
        {
            var entry = db.Entry(entity);
            db.Set<T>().Attach(entity);
            foreach (var property in properties)
                entry.Property(property).IsModified = true;
            await db.SaveChangesAsync();
            return true;
        }
        catch (Exception ex)
        {
            System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("UpdateDbEntryAsync exception: " + ex.Message);
            return false;
        } 
    }

called by

UpdateDbEntryAsync(dbc, d => d.Property1);//, d => d.Property2, d => d.Property3, etc. etc.);

Or by

await UpdateDbEntryAsync(dbc, d => d.Property1);

Or by

bool b = UpdateDbEntryAsync(dbc, d => d.Property1).Result;

3 Comments

How to make this method available for other class, may be like extension method?
in this .NET CORE tutorial they show best practice using (the new) EF Core to update specific properties in MVC. look for 'TryUpdateModelAsync'.
@Guy Awesome. Though, once more Microsoft's "best practice" is to do something other than what their tools build...
1

I use ValueInjecter nuget to inject Binding Model into database Entity using following:

public async Task<IHttpActionResult> Add(CustomBindingModel model)
{
   var entity= await db.MyEntities.FindAsync(model.Id);
   if (entity== null) return NotFound();

   entity.InjectFrom<NoNullsInjection>(model);

   await db.SaveChangesAsync();
   return Ok();
}

Notice the usage of custom convention that doesn't update Properties if they're null from server.

ValueInjecter v3+

public class NoNullsInjection : LoopInjection
{
    protected override void SetValue(object source, object target, PropertyInfo sp, PropertyInfo tp)
    {
        if (sp.GetValue(source) == null) return;
        base.SetValue(source, target, sp, tp);
    }
}

Usage:

target.InjectFrom<NoNullsInjection>(source);

Value Injecter V2

Lookup this answer

Caveat

You won't know whether the property is intentionally cleared to null OR it just didn't have any value it. In other words, the property value can only be replaced with another value but not cleared.

Comments

1
_context.Users.UpdateProperty(p => p.Id, request.UserId, new UpdateWrapper<User>()
                {
                    Expression = p => p.FcmId,Value = request.FcmId
                });
   await _context.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken);

Update Property is an extension method

public static void UpdateProperty<T, T2>(this DbSet<T> set, Expression<Func<T, T2>> idExpression,
            T2 idValue,
            params UpdateWrapper<T>[] updateValues)
            where T : class, new()
        {
            var entity = new T();
            var attach = set.Attach(entity);
            attach.Property(idExpression).IsModified = false;
            attach.Property(idExpression).OriginalValue = idValue;
            foreach (var update in updateValues)
            {
                attach.Property(update.Expression).IsModified = true;
                attach.Property(update.Expression).CurrentValue = update.Value;
            }
        }

And Update Wrapper is a class

public class UpdateWrapper<T>
    {
        public Expression<Func<T, object>> Expression  { get; set; }
        public object Value { get; set; }
    }

4 Comments

To me this is in the category "how to complicate a simple task". For one, why attach a new object while the original is already tracked? You'll even get an exception doing this. And again, this fails with optimistic concurrency and possibly with validation.
The original is not tracked or even fetched from the db. Validation is not handled in this area of code as that was not part of the question
They are tracked in your example. When creating stub entities, validation and optimistic concurrency should always be mentioned as caveats. Anyway, this is yet another answer that says "set IsModified = true". Does it really add anything new to show yet another method of doing that? That's isn't asked either. Old questions collecting more and more noise is quite an annoying problem on Stack Overflow.
@GertArnold true I am using IsModified true, which is already mentioned in other answers. What new I am offering is to do it via Extension methods and making it more generic such that we can specify Id also of the entity which either can be any data type and also which properties to update without fetching them from db. But if you don't find it helpful its up to you, someone would want it to implement via extension methods or any other way, I am just contributing to help others.
-1

I was looking for same and finally I found the solution

using (CString conn = new CString())
{
    USER user = conn.USERs.Find(CMN.CurrentUser.ID);
    user.PASSWORD = txtPass.Text;
    conn.SaveChanges();
}

believe me it work for me like a charm.

Comments

-2
public async Task<bool> UpdateDbEntryAsync(TEntity entity, params Expression<Func<TEntity, object>>[] properties)
{
    try
    {
        this.Context.Set<TEntity>().Attach(entity);
        EntityEntry<TEntity> entry = this.Context.Entry(entity);
        entry.State = EntityState.Modified;
        foreach (var property in properties)
            entry.Property(property).IsModified = true;
        await this.Context.SaveChangesAsync();
        return true;
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        throw ex;
    }
}

Comments

-8
public void ChangePassword(int userId, string password)
{
  var user = new User{ Id = userId, Password = password };
  using (var db = new DbContextName())
  {
    db.Entry(user).State = EntityState.Added;
    db.SaveChanges();
  }
}

1 Comment

This will add a new row. The question is how to update an existing one.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.