Search Results

Search found 95 results on 4 pages for 'transactionscope'.

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

• Setting the database connection when using a TransactionScope

  - by eych

  Does the database connection have to be set inside a TransactionScope? Or can I set it in the ctor and then have instance methods create up a TransactionScope? EDIT: e.g. Public Sub New() Dim conn = new SqlConnection(...connection string) Public Sub SomeClassMethod() using ts as new TransactionScope //conn has already been initialized //so, here you can set commands, ExecuteDataSet, etc. vs Public Sub New() //nothing here Public Sub SomeClassMethod() using ts as new TransactionScope conn = new SqlConnection(...connection string) set commands, ExecuteDataSet, etc. the question is do you need to create the connection to the database after you've created a TransactionScope or can it be done before?

  Read the article

• NHibernate, transactions and TransactionScope

  - by Erik

  I'm trying to find the best solution to handle transaction in a web application that uses NHibernate. We use a IHttpModule and at HttpApplication.BeginRequest we open a new session and we bind it to the HttpContext with ManagedWebSessionContext.Bind(context, session); We close and unbind the session on HttpApplication.EndRequest. In our Repository base class, we always wrapped a transaction around our SaveOrUpdate, Delete, Get methods like, according to best practice: public virtual void Save(T entity) { var session = DependencyManager.Resolve<ISession>(); using (var transaction = session.BeginTransaction()) { session.SaveOrUpdate(entity); transaction.Commit(); } } But then this doesn't work, if you need to put a transaction somewhere in e.g. a Application service to include several repository calls to Save, Delete, etc.. So what we tried is to use TransactionScope (I didn't want to write my own transactionmanager). To test that this worked, I use an outer TransactionScope that doesn't call .Complete() to force a rollback: Repository Save(): public virtual void Save(T entity) { using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) { var session = Depe.ndencyManager.Resolve<ISession>(); session.SaveOrUpdate(entity); scope.Complete(); } } The block that uses the repository: TestEntity testEntity = new TestEntity { Text = "Test1" }; ITestRepository testRepository = DependencyManager.Resolve<ITestRepository>(); testRepository.Save(testEntity); using (var scope = new TransactionScope()) { TestEntity entityToChange = testRepository.GetById(testEntity.Id); entityToChange.Text = "TestChanged"; testRepository.Save(entityToChange); } TestEntity entityChanged = testRepository.GetById(testEntity.Id); Assert.That(entityChanged.Text, Is.EqualTo("Test1")); This doesn't work. But to me if NHibernate supports TransactionScope it would! What happens is that there is no ROLLBACK at all in the database but when the testRepository.GetById(testEntity.Id); statement is executed a UPDATE with SET Text = "TestCahgned" is fired instead (It should have been fired between BEGIN TRAN and ROLLBACK TRAN). NHibernate reads the value from the level1 cache and fires a UPDATE to the database. Not expected behaviour!? From what I understand whenever a rollback is done in the scope of NHibernate you also need to close and unbind the current session. My question is: Does anyone know of a good way to do this using TransactionScope and ManagedWebSessionContext?

  Read the article

• Why doesn't TransactionScope work with Entity Framework?

  - by NotDan

  See the code below. If I initialize more than one entity context, then I get the following exception on the 2nd set of code only. If I comment out the second set it works. {"The underlying provider failed on Open."} Inner: {"Communication with the underlying transaction manager has failed."} Inner: {"Error HRESULT E_FAIL has been returned from a call to a COM component."} Note that this is a sample app and I know it doesn't make sense to create 2 contexts in a row. However, the production code does have reason to create multiple contexts in the same TransactionScope, and this cannot be changed. Edit Here is a previous question of me trying to set up MS-DTC. It seems to be enabled on both the server and the client. I'm not sure if it is set up correctly. Also note that one of the reasons I am trying to do this, is that existing code within the TransactionScope uses ADO.NET and Linq 2 Sql... I would like those to use the same transaction also. (That probably sounds crazy, but I need to make it work if possible). http://stackoverflow.com/questions/794364/how-do-i-use-transactionscope-in-c Solution Windows Firewall was blocking the connections to MS-DTC. using(TransactionScope ts = new System.Transactions.TransactionScope()) { using (DatabaseEntityModel o = new DatabaseEntityModel()) { var v = (from s in o.Advertiser select s).First(); v.AcceptableLength = 1; o.SaveChanges(); } //-> By commenting out this section, it works using (DatabaseEntityModel o = new DatabaseEntityModel()) { //Exception on this next line var v = (from s1 in o.Advertiser select s1).First(); v.AcceptableLength = 1; o.SaveChanges(); } //-> ts.Complete(); }

  Read the article

• Informix, NHibernate, TransactionScope interaction difficulties

  - by John Prideaux

  I have a small program that is trying to wrap an NHibernate insert into an Informix database in a TransactionScope object using the Informix .NET Provider. I am getting the error specified below. The code without the TransactionScope object works -- including when the insert is wrapped in an NHibernate session transaction. Any ideas on what the problem is? BTW, without the EnterpriseServicesInterop, the Informix .NET Provider will not participate in a TransactionScope transaction (verified without NHibernate involved). Code Snippet: public static void TestTScope() { Employee johnp = new Employee { name = "John Prideaux" }; using (TransactionScope tscope = new TransactionScope( TransactionScopeOption.Required, new TransactionOptions() { Timeout = new TimeSpan(0, 1, 0), IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted }, EnterpriseServicesInteropOption.Full)) { using (ISession session = OpenSession()) { session.Save(johnp); Console.WriteLine("Saved John to the database"); } } Console.WriteLine("Transaction should be rolled back"); } static ISession OpenSession() { if (factory == null) { Configuration c = new Configuration(); c.AddAssembly(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly()); factory = c.BuildSessionFactory(); } return factory.OpenSession(); } static ISessionFactory factory; Stack Trace: NHibernate.ADOException was unhandled Message="Could not close IBM.Data.Informix.IfxConnection connection" Source="NHibernate" StackTrace: at NHibernate.Connection.ConnectionProvider.CloseConnection(IDbConnection conn) at NHibernate.Connection.DriverConnectionProvider.CloseConnection(IDbConnection conn) at NHibernate.Tool.hbm2ddl.SuppliedConnectionProviderConnectionHelper.Release() at NHibernate.Tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaMetadataUpdater.GetReservedWords(Dialect dialect, IConnectionHelper connectionHelper) at NHibernate.Tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaMetadataUpdater.Update(ISessionFactory sessionFactory) at NHibernate.Impl.SessionFactoryImpl..ctor(Configuration cfg, IMapping mapping, Settings settings, EventListeners listeners) at NHibernate.Cfg.Configuration.BuildSessionFactory() at HelloNHibernate.Employee.OpenSession() in D:\Development\ScratchProject\HelloNHibernate\Employee.cs:line 73 at HelloNHibernate.Employee.TestTScope() in D:\Development\ScratchProject\HelloNHibernate\Employee.cs:line 53 at HelloNHibernate.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Development\ScratchProject\HelloNHibernate\Program.cs:line 19 at System.AppDomain._nExecuteAssembly(Assembly assembly, String[] args) at System.AppDomain.ExecuteAssembly(String assemblyFile, Evidence assemblySecurity, String[] args) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.HostProc.RunUsersAssembly() at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart_Context(Object state) at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.Run(ExecutionContext executionContext, ContextCallback callback, Object state) at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart() InnerException: IBM.Data.Informix.IfxException Message="ERROR - no error information available" Source="IBM.Data.Informix" ErrorCode=-2147467259 StackTrace: at IBM.Data.Informix.IfxConnection.HandleError(IntPtr hHandle, SQL_HANDLE hType, RETCODE retcode) at IBM.Data.Informix.IfxConnection.DisposeClose() at IBM.Data.Informix.IfxConnection.Close() at NHibernate.Connection.ConnectionProvider.CloseConnection(IDbConnection conn) InnerException:

  Read the article

• Under what circumstances is an SqlConnection automatically enlisted in an ambient TransactionScope T

  - by Triynko

  What does it mean for an SqlConnection to be "enlisted" in a transaction? Does it simply mean that commands I execute on the connection will participate in the transaction? If so, under what circumstances is an SqlConnection automatically enlisted in an ambient TransactionScope Transaction? See questions in code comments. My guess to each question's answer follows each question in parenthesis. Scenario 1: Opening connections INSIDE a transaction scope using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) using (SqlConnection conn = ConnectToDB()) { // Q1: Is connection automatically enlisted in transaction? (Yes?) // // Q2: If I open (and run commands on) a second connection now, // with an identical connection string, // what, if any, is the relationship of this second connection to the first? // // Q3: Will this second connection's automatic enlistment // in the current transaction scope cause the transaction to be // escalated to a distributed transaction? (Yes?) } Scenario 2: Using connections INSIDE a transaction scope that were opened OUTSIDE of it //Assume no ambient transaction active now SqlConnection new_or_existing_connection = ConnectToDB(); //or passed in as method parameter using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) { // Connection was opened before transaction scope was created // Q4: If I start executing commands on the connection now, // will it automatically become enlisted in the current transaction scope? (No?) // // Q5: If not enlisted, will commands I execute on the connection now // participate in the ambient transaction? (No?) // // Q6: If commands on this connection are // not participating in the current transaction, will they be committed // even if rollback the current transaction scope? (Yes?) // // If my thoughts are correct, all of the above is disturbing, // because it would look like I'm executing commands // in a transaction scope, when in fact I'm not at all, // until I do the following... // // Now enlisting existing connection in current transaction conn.EnlistTransaction( Transaction.Current ); // // Q7: Does the above method explicitly enlist the pre-existing connection // in the current ambient transaction, so that commands I // execute on the connection now participate in the // ambient transaction? (Yes?) // // Q8: If the existing connection was already enlisted in a transaction // when I called the above method, what would happen? Might an error be thrown? (Probably?) // // Q9: If the existing connection was already enlisted in a transaction // and I did NOT call the above method to enlist it, would any commands // I execute on it participate in it's existing transaction rather than // the current transaction scope. (Yes?) }

  Read the article

• TransactionScope and Connection Pooling

  - by Graham

  Hi, I'm trying to get a handle on whether we have a problem in our application with database connections using incorrect IsolationLevels. Our application is a .Net 3.5 database app using SQL Server 2005. I've discovered that the IsolationLevel of connections are not reset when they are returned to the connection pool (see here) and was also really surprised to read in this blog post that each new TransactionScope created gets its own connection pool assigned to it. Our database updates (via our business objects) take place within a TransactionScope (a new one is created for each business object graph update). But our fetches do not use an explicit transaction. So what I'm wondering is could we ever get into the situation where our fetch operations (which should be using the default IsolationLevel - Read Committed) would reuse a connection from the pool which has been used for an update, and inherit the update IsolationLevel (RepeatableRead)? Or would our updates be guaranteed to use a different connection pool seeing as they are wrapped in a TransactionScope? Thanks in advance, Graham

  Read the article

• Question About TransactionScope in .NET

  - by peace

  using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) { int updatedRows1 = custPh.Update(cust.CustomerID, tempPh1, 0); int updatedRows2 = custPh.Update(cust.CustomerID, tempPh2, 1); int updatedRows3 = cust.Update(); if (updatedRows1 > 0 && updatedRows2 > 0 && updatedRows3 > 0) { scope.Complete(); } } Is the above TransactionScope code structured correctly? This is my first time using it so i'm trying to make as simple as i can.

  Read the article

• TransactionScope() in Sql Azure

  - by Rick Make

  Does Sql Azure support using TransactionScope() when performing inserts? Below is a code snippet of what I am trying to do. using (var tx = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.RequiresNew, new TransactionOptions() { IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted })) { using (var db = MyDataContext.GetDataContext()) { try { MyObject myObject = new MyObject() { SomeString = "Monday" }; db.MyObjects.InsertOnSubmit(myObject); db.SubmitChanges(); tx.Complete(); } catch (Exception e) { } } }

  Read the article

• Why is TransactionScope operation is not valid?

  - by Cragly

  I have a routine which uses a recursive loop to insert items into a SQL Server 2005 database The first call which initiates the loop is enclosed within a transaction using TransactionScope. When I first call ProcessItem the myItem data gets inserted into the database as expected. However when ProcessItem is called from either ProcessItemLinks or ProcessItemComments I get the following error. “The operation is not valid for the state of the transaction” I am running this in debug with VS 2008 on Windows 7 and have the MSDTC running to enable distributed transactions. The code below isn’t my production code but is set out exactly the same. The AddItemToDatabase is a method on a class I cannot modify and uses a standard ExecuteNonQuery() which creates a connection then closes and disposes once completed. I have looked at other posting on here and the internet and still cannot resolve this issue. Any help would be much appreciated. using (TransactionScope processItem = new TransactionScope()) { foreach (Item myItem in itemsList) { ProcessItem(myItem); } processItem.Complete(); } private void ProcessItem(Item myItem) { AddItemToDatabase(myItem); ProcessItemLinks(myItem); ProcessItemComments(myItem); } private void ProcessItemLinks(Item myItem) { foreach (Item link in myItem.Links) { ProcessItem(link); } } private void ProcessItemComments(Item myItem) { foreach (Item comment in myItem.Comments) { ProcessItem(comment); } } Here is top part of the stack trace. Unfortunatly I cant show the build up to this point as its company sensative information which I can not disclose. Hope this is enough information. at System.Transactions.TransactionState.EnlistPromotableSinglePhase(InternalTransaction tx, IPromotableSinglePhaseNotification promotableSinglePhaseNotification, Transaction atomicTransaction) at System.Transactions.Transaction.EnlistPromotableSinglePhase(IPromotableSinglePhaseNotification promotableSinglePhaseNotification) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.EnlistNonNull(Transaction tx) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.Enlist(Transaction tx) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnectionTds.Activate(Transaction transaction) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionInternal.ActivateConnection(Transaction transaction) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionPool.GetConnection(DbConnection owningObject) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionFactory.GetConnection(DbConnection owningConnection) at System.Data.ProviderBase.DbConnectionClosed.OpenConnection(DbConnection outerConnection, DbConnectionFactory connectionFactory) at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.Open()

  Read the article

• Database doesn't update using TransactionScope

  - by Dissonant

  I have a client trying to communicate with a WCF service in a transactional manner. The client passes some data to the service and the service adds the data to its database accordingly. For some reason, the new data the service submits to its database isn't being persisted. When I have a look at the table data in the Server Explorer no new rows are added... Relevant code snippets are below: Client static void Main() { MyServiceClient client = new MyServiceClient(); Console.WriteLine("Please enter your name:"); string name = Console.ReadLine(); Console.WriteLine("Please enter the amount:"); int amount = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine()); using (TransactionScope transaction = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required)) { client.SubmitData(amount, name); transaction.Complete(); } client.Close(); } Service Note: I'm using Entity Framework to persist objects to the database. [OperationBehavior(TransactionScopeRequired = true, TransactionAutoComplete = true)] public void SubmitData(int amount, string name) { DatabaseEntities db = new DatabaseEntities(); Payment payment = new Payment(); payment.Amount = amount; payment.Name = name; db.AddToPayment(payment); //add to Payment table db.SaveChanges(); db.Dispose(); } I'm guessing it has something to do with the TransactionScope being used in the client. I've tried all combinations of db.SaveChanges() and db.AcceptAllChanges() as well, but the new payment data just doesn't get added to the database!

  Read the article

• Nested/Child TransactionScope Rollback

  - by Robert Wagner

  I am trying to nest TransactionScopes (.net 4.0) as you would nest Transactions in SQL Server, however it looks like they operate differently. I want my child transactions to be able to rollback if they fail, but allow the parent transaction to decide whether to commit/rollback the whole operation. A greatly simplified example of what I am trying to do: static void Main(string[] args) { using(var scope = new TransactionScope()) // Trn A { // Insert Data A DoWork(true); DoWork(false); // Rollback or Commit } } // This class is a few layers down static void DoWork(bool fail) { using(var scope = new TransactionScope()) // Trn B { // Update Data A if(!fail) { scope.Complete(); } } } I can't use the Suppress or RequiresNew options as Trn B relies on data inserted by Trn A. If I do use those options, Trn B is blocked by Trn A. Any ideas how I would get it to work, or if it is even possible using the System.Transactions namespace? Thanks

  Read the article

• TransactionScope Prematurely Completed

  - by Chris

  I have a block of code that runs within a TransactionScope and within this block of code I make several calls to the DB. Selects, Updates, Creates, and Deletes, the whole gamut. When I execute my delete I execute it using an extension method of the SqlCommand that will automatically resubmit the query if it deadlocks as this query could potentially hit a deadlock. I believe the problem occurs when a deadlock is hit and the function tries to resubmit the query. This is the error I receive: The transaction associated with the current connection has completed but has not been disposed. The transaction must be disposed before the connection can be used to execute SQL statements. This is the simple code that executes the query (all of the code below executes within the using of the TransactionScope): using (sqlCommand.Connection = new SqlConnection(ConnectionStrings.App)) { sqlCommand.Connection.Open(); sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQueryWithDeadlockHandling(); } Here is the extension method that resubmits the deadlocked query: public static class SqlCommandExtender { private const int DEADLOCK_ERROR = 1205; private const int MAXIMUM_DEADLOCK_RETRIES = 5; private const int SLEEP_INCREMENT = 100; public static void ExecuteNonQueryWithDeadlockHandling(this SqlCommand sqlCommand) { int count = 0; SqlException deadlockException = null; do { if (count > 0) Thread.Sleep(count * SLEEP_INCREMENT); deadlockException = ExecuteNonQuery(sqlCommand); count++; } while (deadlockException != null && count < MAXIMUM_DEADLOCK_RETRIES); if (deadlockException != null) throw deadlockException; } private static SqlException ExecuteNonQuery(SqlCommand sqlCommand) { try { sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); } catch (SqlException exception) { if (exception.Number == DEADLOCK_ERROR) return exception; throw; } return null; } } The error occurs on the line that executes the nonquery: sqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery();

  Read the article

• Failed Castle ActiveRecord TransactionScope causes future queries to be invalid

  - by mbp

  I am trying to solve an issue when using a Castle ActiveRecord TransactionScope which is rolled back. After the rollback, I am unable to query the Dog table. The "Dog.FindFirst()" line fails with "Could not perform SlicedFindAll for Dog", because it cannot insert dogMissingName. using (new SessionScope()) { try { var trans = new TransactionScope(TransactionMode.New, OnDispose.Commit); try { var dog = new Dog { Name = "Snowy" }; dog.Save(); var dogMissingName = new Dog(); dogMissingName.Save(); } catch (Exception) { trans.VoteRollBack(); throw; } finally { trans.Dispose(); } } catch (Exception ex) { var randomDog = Dog.FindFirst() Console.WriteLine("Random dog : " + randomDog.Name); } } Stacktrace is as follows: Castle.ActiveRecord.Framework.ActiveRecordException: Could not perform SlicedFindAll for Dog ---> NHibernate.Exceptions.GenericADOException: could not insert: [Mvno.Dal.Dog#219e86fa-1081-490a-92d1-9d480171fcfd][SQL: INSERT INTO Dog (Name, Id) VALUES (?, ?)] ---> System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: Cannot insert the value NULL into column 'Name', table 'Dog'; column does not allow nulls. INSERT fails. The statement has been terminated. ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlInternalConnection.OnError(SqlException exception, Boolean breakConnection) ved System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.ThrowExceptionAndWarning(TdsParserStateObject stateObj) ved System.Data.SqlClient.TdsParser.Run(RunBehavior runBehavior, SqlCommand cmdHandler, SqlDataReader dataStream, BulkCopySimpleResultSet bulkCopyHandler, TdsParserStateObject stateObj) ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.FinishExecuteReader(SqlDataReader ds, RunBehavior runBehavior, String resetOptionsString) ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.RunExecuteReaderTds(CommandBehavior cmdBehavior, RunBehavior runBehavior, Boolean returnStream, Boolean async) ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.RunExecuteReader(CommandBehavior cmdBehavior, RunBehavior runBehavior, Boolean returnStream, String method, DbAsyncResult result) ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.InternalExecuteNonQuery(DbAsyncResult result, String methodName, Boolean sendToPipe) ved System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery() ved NHibernate.AdoNet.AbstractBatcher.ExecuteNonQuery(IDbCommand cmd) ved NHibernate.AdoNet.NonBatchingBatcher.AddToBatch(IExpectation expectation) ved NHibernate.Persister.Entity.AbstractEntityPersister.Insert(Object id, Object[] fields, Boolean[] notNull, Int32 j, SqlCommandInfo sql, Object obj, ISessionImplementor session) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- ved NHibernate.Persister.Entity.AbstractEntityPersister.Insert(Object id, Object[] fields, Boolean[] notNull, Int32 j, SqlCommandInfo sql, Object obj, ISessionImplementor session) ved NHibernate.Persister.Entity.AbstractEntityPersister.Insert(Object id, Object[] fields, Object obj, ISessionImplementor session) ved NHibernate.Action.EntityInsertAction.Execute() ved NHibernate.Engine.ActionQueue.Execute(IExecutable executable) ved NHibernate.Engine.ActionQueue.ExecuteActions(IList list) ved NHibernate.Engine.ActionQueue.ExecuteActions() ved NHibernate.Event.Default.AbstractFlushingEventListener.PerformExecutions(IEventSource session) ved NHibernate.Event.Default.DefaultAutoFlushEventListener.OnAutoFlush(AutoFlushEvent event) ved NHibernate.Impl.SessionImpl.AutoFlushIfRequired(ISet`1 querySpaces) ved NHibernate.Impl.SessionImpl.List(CriteriaImpl criteria, IList results) ved NHibernate.Impl.CriteriaImpl.List(IList results) ved NHibernate.Impl.CriteriaImpl.List() ved Castle.ActiveRecord.ActiveRecordBase.SlicedFindAll(Type targetType, Int32 firstResult, Int32 maxResults, Order[] orders, ICriterion[] criteria) --- End of inner exception stack trace --- ved Castle.ActiveRecord.ActiveRecordBase.SlicedFindAll(Type targetType, Int32 firstResult, Int32 maxResults, Order[] orders, ICriterion[] criteria) ved Castle.ActiveRecord.ActiveRecordBase.FindFirst(Type targetType, Order[] orders, ICriterion[] criteria) ved Castle.ActiveRecord.ActiveRecordBase.FindFirst(Type targetType, ICriterion[] criteria) ved Castle.ActiveRecord.ActiveRecordBase`1.FindFirst(ICriterion[] criteria)

  Read the article

• Why is TransactionScope using a distributed transaction when I am only using LinqToSql and Ado.Net

  - by Ian Ringrose

  We are having problems on one machine, with the error message: "MSDTC on server XXX is unavailable." The code is using a TransactionScope to wrap some LingToSql database code; there is also some raw Ado.net inside of the transaction. As only a single sql database (2005) is being accessed, why is a distributed transaction being used at all? (I don’t wish to know how to enable MSDTC, as the code needs to work on the server with their current setup)

  Read the article

• TransactionScope won't work with DB2 provider

  - by Florin

  Hi Everyone, I've been trying to use TransactionScope with a DB2 database (using DB2 .Net provider v 9.0.0.2 and c# 2.0) which SHOULD be supported according to IBM. I have tried all the advice i could find on the IBM forums (such as here) to no avail. I have enabled XA transactions on my XP Sp2 machine, tried also from a Win 2003 Server machine but i consistently get the infamous error: ERROR [58005] [IBM][DB2/NT] SQL0998N Error occurred during transaction or heuristic processing. Reason Code = "16". Subcode = "2-80004005". SQLSTATE=58005 The windows event log says: The XA Transaction Manager attempted to load the XA resource manager DLL. The call to LOADLIBRARY for the XA resource manager DLL failed: DLL=C:\APPS\IBM\DB2v95fp2\SQLLIB\BIN\DB2APP.DLL File=d:\comxp_sp2\com\com1x\dtc\dtc\xatm\src\xarmconn.cpp Line=2467. Also, granted the NETWORK SERVICE user full rights to the folder and dll. Here's the MSDTC startup message MS DTC started with the following settings: Security Configuration (OFF = 0 and ON = 1): Network Administration of Transactions = 0, Network Clients = 0, Inbound Distributed Transactions using Native MSDTC Protocol = 0, Outbound Distributed Transactions using Native MSDTC Protocol = 0, Transaction Internet Protocol (TIP) = 0, XA Transactions = 1 Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks, Florin

  Read the article

• Unit Testing the Use of TransactionScope

  - by Randolpho

  The preamble: I have designed a strongly interfaced and fully mockable data layer class that expects the business layer to create a TransactionScope when multiple calls should be included in a single transaction. The problem: I would like to unit test that my business layer makes use of a TransactionScope object when I expect it to. Unfortunately, the standard pattern for using TransactionScope is a follows: using(var scope = new TransactionScope()) { // transactional methods datalayer.InsertFoo(); datalayer.InsertBar(); scope.Complete(); } While this is a really great pattern in terms of usability for the programmer, testing that it's done seems... unpossible to me. I cannot detect that a transient object has been instantiated, let alone mock it to determine that a method was called on it. Yet my goal for coverage implies that I must. The Question: How can I go about building unit tests that ensure TransactionScope is used appropriately according to the standard pattern? Final Thoughts: I've considered a solution that would certainly provide the coverage I need, but have rejected it as overly complex and not conforming to the standard TransactionScope pattern. It involves adding a CreateTransactionScope method on my data layer object that returns an instance of TransactionScope. But because TransactionScope contains constructor logic and non-virtual methods and is therefore difficult if not impossible to mock, CreateTransactionScope would return an instance of DataLayerTransactionScope which would be a mockable facade into TransactionScope. While this might do the job it's complex and I would prefer to use the standard pattern. Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• TransactionScope question - how can I keep the DTC from getting involved in this?

  - by larryq

  (I know the circumstances surrounding the DTC and promoting a transaction can be a bit mysterious to those of us not in the know, but let me show you how my company is doing things, and if you can tell me why the DTC is getting involved, and if possible, what I can do to avoid it, I'd be grateful.) I have code running on an ASP.Net webserver. We have one database, SQL 2008. Our data access code looks something like this-- We have a data access layer that uses a wrapper object for SQLConnections and SQLCommands. Typical use looks like this: void method1() { objDataObject = new DataAccessLayer(); objDataObject.Connection = SomeConnectionMethod(); SqlCommand objCommand = DataAccessUtils.CreateCommand(SomeStoredProc); //create some SqlParameters, add them to the objCommand, etc.... objDataObject.BeginTransaction(IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted); objDataObject.ExecuteNonQuery(objCommand); objDataObject.CommitTransaction(); objDataObject.CloseConnection(); } So indeed, a very thin wrapper around SqlClient, SqlConnection etc. I want to run several stored procs in a transaction, and the wrapper class doesn't allow me access to the SqlTransaction so I can't pass it from one component to the next. This led me to use a TransactionScope: using (TransactionScope tx1 = new TransactionScope(TransactionScope.RequiresNew)) { method1(); method2(); method3(); tx1.Complete(); } When I do this, the DTC gets involved, and unfortunately our webservers don't have "allow remote clients" enabled in the MSDTC settings-- getting IT to allow that will be a fight. I'd love to avoid DTC becoming involved but can I do it? Can I leave out the transactional calls in methods1-3() and just let the TransactionScope figure it all out?

  Read the article

• How does TransactionScope guarantee data integrity across multiple databases?

  - by Bas Smit

  Hey guys, Can someone tell me the principle of how TransactionScope guarantees data integrity across multiple databases? I imagine it first sends the commands to the databases and then waits for the databases to respond before sending them a message to apply the command sent earlier. However when execution is stopped abruptly when sending those apply messages we could still end up with a database that has applied the command and one that has not. Can anyone shed some light on this? Edit: I guess what Im asking is can I rely on TransactionScope to guarantee data integrity when writing to multiple databases in case of a power outage or a sudden shutdown. Thanks, Bas Example: using(var scope=new TransactionScope()) { using (var context = new FirstEntities()) { context.AddToSomethingSet(new Something()); context.SaveChanges(); } using (var context = new SecondEntities()) { context.AddToSomethingElseSet(new SomethingElse()); context.SaveChanges(); } scope.Complete(); }

  Read the article

• not use "using" statement for TransactionScope

  - by hotyi

  i always using the following format to use transactionscope. using(TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()){ .... } sometimes i want to wrap the transactionscope to a new class, for example DbContext class, i want to using the statement like dbContext.Begin(); ... dbContext.Submit(); it seems the transactioncope class need use "using"statement to do dispose, i want to know if there is anyway not use "using".

  Read the article

• How can I seperate my TransactionScope so they don't interfere with each other?

  - by shenku

  I have some business logic that executes within a simple TransactionScope. using (var scope = new TransactionScope()) { // does some logic. // then some more... scope.Complete(); } During execution an ado exception ocurres and the transaction is on it's way to being disposed. In the mean time the exception is captured further upstream, and I try to log it to my database, via another connection. At this point I get another error saying The operation is not valid for the state of the transaction. Eeek! Now I can see I am able to use IsolationLevel, to change the way my transactions interact, but is this the right thing to do? And which should I use?

  Read the article

• is TransactionScope usable for sql operations, is it doing the same thing as Sqltransaction ?

  - by Omu

  can I do something like this: using (var scope = new TransactionScope()) { using (var conn = new SqlConnection(Cs)) { using (var cmd = conn.CreateCommand()) { cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; ... scope.complete(); } } } is going to be the same thing as using the SqlTransaction with catch(){rollback;}

  Read the article

• Membership.GetUser() within TransactionScope throws TransactionPromotionException

  - by Bob Kaufman

  The following code throws a TransactionAbortedException with message "The transaction has aborted" and an inner TransactionPromotionException with message "Failure while attempting to promote transaction": using ( TransactionScope transactionScope = new TransactionScope() ) { try { using ( MyDataContext context = new MyDataContext() ) { Guid accountID = new Guid( Request.QueryString[ "aid" ] ); Account account = ( from a in context.Accounts where a.UniqueID.Equals( accountID ) select a ).SingleOrDefault(); IQueryable < My_Data_Access_Layer.Login > loginList = from l in context.Logins where l.AccountID == account.AccountID select l; foreach ( My_Data_Access_Layer.Login login in loginList ) { MembershipUser membershipUser = Membership.GetUser( login.UniqueID ); } [... lots of DeleteAllOnSubmit() calls] context.SubmitChanges(); transactionScope.Complete(); } } catch ( Exception E ) { [... reports the exception ...] } } The error occurs at the call to Membership.GetUser(). My Connection String is: <add name="MyConnectionString" connectionString="Data Source=localhost\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;Integrated Security=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /> Everything I've read tells me that TransactionScope should just get magically applied to the Membership calls. The user exists (I'd expect a null return otherwise.)

  Read the article

• Membership.GetUser() within TransactionScope throws TransactionAbortedException

  - by Bob Kaufman

  The following code throws a TransactionAbortedException with message "The transaction has aborted": using ( MyDataContext context = new MyDataContext() ) { using ( TransactionScope transactionScope = new TransactionScope() ) { Guid accountID = new Guid( Request.QueryString[ "aid" ] ); Account account = ( from a in context.Accounts where a.UniqueID.Equals( accountID ) select a ).SingleOrDefault(); IQueryable < My_Data_Access_Layer.Login > loginList = from l in context.Logins where l.AccountID == account.AccountID select l; foreach ( My_Data_Access_Layer.Login login in loginList ) { MembershipUser membershipUser = Membership.GetUser( login.UniqueID ); } } } The error occurs at the call to Membership.GetUser(). My Connection String is: <add name="MyConnectionString" connectionString="Data Source=localhost\SQLEXPRESS;Initial Catalog=MyDatabase;Integrated Security=True" providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" /> Everything I've read tells me that TransactionScope should just get magically applied to the Membership calls. The user exists (I'd expect a null return otherwise.)

  Read the article

• TransactionScope and Transactions

  - by Mike

  In my C# code I am using TransactionScope because I was told not to rely that my sql programmers will always use transactions and we are responsible and yada yada. Having said that It looks like TransactionScope object Rolls back before the SqlTransaction? Is that possible and if so what is the correct methodology for wrapping a TransactionScope in a transaction. Here is the sql test CREATE PROC ThrowError AS BEGIN TRANSACTION --SqlTransaction SELECT 1/0 IF @@ERROR<> 0 BEGIN ROLLBACK TRANSACTION --SqlTransaction RETURN -1 END ELSE BEGIN COMMIT TRANSACTION --SqlTransaction RETURN 0 END go DECLARE @RESULT INT EXEC @RESULT = ThrowError SELECT @RESULT And if I run this I get just the divide by 0 and return -1 Call from the C# code I get an extra error message Divide by zero error encountered. Transaction count after EXECUTE indicates that a COMMIT or ROLLBACK TRANSACTION tatement is missing. Previous count = 1, current count = 0. If I give the sql transaction a name then Cannot roll back SqlTransaction. No transaction or savepoint of that name was found. Transaction count after EXECUTE indicates that a COMMIT or ROLLBACK TRANSACTION statement is missing. Previous count = 1, current count = 2. some times it seems the count goes up, until the app completely exits The c# is just using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope()) { ... Execute Sql scope.Commit() }

  Read the article

• Does a TransactionScope that exists only to select data require a call to Complete()

  - by fordareh

  In order to select data from part of an application that isn't affected by dirty data, I create a TransactionScope that specifies a ReadUncommitted IsolationLevel as per the suggestion from Hanselman here. My question is, do I still need to execute the oTS.Complete() call at the end of the using block even if this transaction scope was not built for the purpose of bridging object dependencies across 2 databases during an Insert, Update, or Delete? Ex: List<string> oStrings = null; using (SomeDataContext oCtxt = new SomeDataContext (sConnStr)) using (TransactionScope oTS = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required, new TransactionOptions { IsolationLevel = System.Transactions.IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted })) { oStrings = oCtxt.EStrings.ToList(); oTS.Complete(); }

  Read the article

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >