Problems materializing target in one-to-one association

Hello -

I finally got the no-id-field thing figured out (found someone with access to the Oracle database and he created a view with a dummy surrogate ID field) but I'm now having problems materializing a target entity in a one-to-one association. I have attached the model project (IqmsModel.zip) and the code that uses it (IqmsOrderItemData.zip). The offending entity is called PceVBomOpmat - yeah I know, even the name is somewhat offensive, eh?

Anyway, here is the code that fails:

    private static ItemData GetKitItemData(Arinvt arinvt, string item)
    {
        var itemData = new ItemData();

        foreach (var op in arinvt.PceVBomOpmats)
        {
            if (op.OpmatArinvt != null && op.OpmatArinvt.Itemno != null)
            {
                if (op.OpmatArinvt.Itemno.Trim() == item)
                {
                    itemData.ItemCount = (int) (op.Ptsper ?? 0);
                    itemData.PartNumber = op.OpmatArinvt.Descrip;
                    itemData.OemId = (int) (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser8 ?? 0);
                    itemData.Family = (int) (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser9 ?? 0) / 1000;
                    itemData.TestPlanId = (int) (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser9 ?? 0) % 1000;
                    return itemData;
                }

                // if this kit is built from other kits, call ourselves recursively
                if (1 == (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser7 ?? 0))
                {
                    return GetKitItemData(op.OpmatArinvt, item);
                }
            }
        }

        return null;
    }

On the seventh line, op.OpmatArinvt is always null. The foreign key field that references it is NOT null, so I don't understand why the target entity is not being materialized. Any thoughts?

Thanks, Dave

OK so I see I got no replies yesterday. Is that because I didn't explain the problem well enough, is the example code not sufficient to demonstrate it, is everyone too busy to answer or is it truly a stumper?

Just askin'... Dave

So here's what I had to do to get it to work:

    private static ItemData GetKitItemData(Arinvt arinvt, string item)
    {
        var itemData = new ItemData();

        foreach (var op in arinvt.PceVBomOpmats)
        {
            if (op.OpmatArinvt == null)
            {
                op.OpmatArinvt = GetOpmatArinvt(op.OpmatArinvtId);
            }

            if (op.OpmatArinvt != null && op.OpmatArinvt.Itemno != null)
            {
                if (op.OpmatArinvt.Itemno.Trim() == item)
                {
                    itemData.ItemCount = (int) (op.Ptsper ?? 0);
                    itemData.PartNumber = op.OpmatArinvt.Descrip;
                    itemData.OemId = (int) (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser8 ?? 0);
                    itemData.Family = (int) (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser9 ?? 0) / 1000;
                    itemData.TestPlanId = (int) (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser9 ?? 0) % 1000;
                    return itemData;
                }

                // if this kit is built from other kits, call ourselves recursively
                if (1 == (op.OpmatArinvt.Nuser7 ?? 0))
                {
                    return GetKitItemData(op.OpmatArinvt, item);
                }
            }
        }

        return null;
    }

    private static Arinvt GetOpmatArinvt(long? opmatArinvtId)
    {
        if (opmatArinvtId == null || opmatArinvtId <= 0)
        {
            return null;
        }

        Arinvt target = null;
        using (var unitOfWork = Context.CreateUnitOfWork())
        {
            target = unitOfWork.Arinvt.FirstOrDefault(t => t.Id == opmatArinvtId);
        }

        return target;
    }

That's downright ugly... It's also slow. But it works, and I can't get it to work without manually looking up the entity using the entity ID. Ugh.

Any ideas from the other side of the world?

Turn off the eager load between Arinvt and PceVBomOpmat - that appeared to work at the cost of the additional queries. Let me know if you see the same result. I believe the PceVBomOpmat instance believes it has already eager loaded its Arinvt counterpart but in fact it hasn't.

Jeremy

Well that won't be any less efficient than what I'm currently doing to make it work. A lot more elegant, too. I have a full morning but I will definitely give that a try.

Oh wait. You all won't be in (tomorrow) until 2 or 3 PM here today... :) I'll let you know.

This solution seems to do the trick. I'm not terribly concerned with the time involved for the extra queries at this point as the volume is pretty low, so this resolves the issue for now.

Thanks for the feedback! Dave