You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Because the project uses a SaveChangesInterceptor, exceptions thrown by calls to ExecuteUpdate or ExecuteDelete or their async variants will not be intercepted. Supporting these is simple enough: just add a DbCommandInterceptor overriding CommandFailed(Async). However, the current structure of the project doesn't allow this to be done easily, as each provider provides its own interceptor, and the DatabaseError enum is a member of the ExceptionProcessorInterceptor class.
I propose each provider has its own exception processor, but there be only one SaveChangesInterceptor and DbCommandInterceptor for project. The interceptors can take the provider's exception processor in their constructors when instantiated in UseExceptionProcessor().
For now, I'm working on a PR to add support using the existing pattern with an extra interceptor for each provider, but I'm creating an issue for discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Because the project uses a
SaveChangesInterceptor
, exceptions thrown by calls toExecuteUpdate
orExecuteDelete
or their async variants will not be intercepted. Supporting these is simple enough: just add aDbCommandInterceptor
overridingCommandFailed(Async)
. However, the current structure of the project doesn't allow this to be done easily, as each provider provides its own interceptor, and theDatabaseError
enum is a member of theExceptionProcessorInterceptor
class.I propose each provider has its own exception processor, but there be only one
SaveChangesInterceptor
andDbCommandInterceptor
for project. The interceptors can take the provider's exception processor in their constructors when instantiated inUseExceptionProcessor()
.For now, I'm working on a PR to add support using the existing pattern with an extra interceptor for each provider, but I'm creating an issue for discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: