
### ⚠ Important Tip
If your `agent.ts` uses `useAuthStore().token` **at the top level**, remember:
- On very first load, Zustand will **rehydrate** from storage _after_ initial render, so token may be `null` until rehydration is done.
- Fix: either delay access until after `hasHydrated`, or refactor `agent` to inject token per request.




To **safely handle concurrency** in your `CreateTicketOrderAsync` method — particularly for **seat reservation** on the same `Transportation` — you need to **prevent race conditions** where two users might reserve the same seat or oversell capacity.

This is a **classic critical section problem**, and you can solve it using **application-level locking**, **database-level locking**, or both.

---

## ✅ Recommended: **Database-level concurrency control + optional distributed lock**

### 👇 Here’s what you should do:

---

## ✅ 1. Use **pessimistic concurrency** (row-level locking) on the `Transportation` row

### Why?

You need to **lock the transportation row** to prevent multiple reservations from modifying the related seats/capacity **at the same time**.

### How?

Use EF Core's **raw SQL or transaction-scoped SELECT ... FOR UPDATE** (which translates to SQL row locks):

```csharp
using var transaction = await _context.Database.BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel.Serializable);

var transportation = await _context.Transportations
    .FromSqlRaw("SELECT * FROM Transportations WITH (UPDLOCK, ROWLOCK) WHERE Id = {0}", dto.TransportationId)
    .FirstOrDefaultAsync();
```

- `UPDLOCK`: prevents others from reading for update
    
- `ROWLOCK`: locks only the specific row
    

> If using PostgreSQL or MySQL, you’d use `FOR UPDATE` instead.

---

## ✅ 2. Alternatively, use **distributed locking** if you have multiple app instances

Use something like:

- **Redis distributed lock**
    
- **SQL application locks** (`sp_getapplock`)
    
- **SemaphoreSlim static lock** (only for single-instance apps — not safe in web farms)
    

### Example using `sp_getapplock` (SQL Server):

```sql
EXEC sp_getapplock @Resource = 'lock_transportation_123', @LockMode = 'Exclusive', @LockTimeout = 10000;
```

EF version:

```csharp
await _dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync(
    $"EXEC sp_getapplock @Resource = 'transportation_lock_{dto.TransportationId}', @LockMode = 'Exclusive', @LockTimeout = 10000;");
```

✅ This will ensure **only one thread** gets to proceed per `TransportationId`.

---

## ✅ 3. Wrap the reservation logic in a **transaction**

```csharp
using var transaction = await _context.Database.BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel.Serializable);

// locking query here
// seat validation
// insert tickets
// save ticket order
// commit

await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();
await transaction.CommitAsync();
```

Use `IsolationLevel.Serializable` or `RepeatableRead` if you’re not doing explicit locking.

---

## ✅ 4. Add a **unique constraint** on `SeatId + TransportationId` (if not already)

To **enforce uniqueness at DB level** and prevent race conditions from succeeding:

```sql
ALTER TABLE Tickets ADD CONSTRAINT UQ_Tickets_Seat_Transport UNIQUE (SeatId, TicketStatusId)
WHERE TicketStatusId != 3; -- exclude cancelled
```

Or make a logic-safe alternative depending on your schema.

---

## ✅ Final version: Summary of changes

### In your service:

```csharp
using var transaction = await _dbContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel.Serializable);

// Optional: Lock the transportation row to prevent race
await _dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync(
    $"EXEC sp_getapplock @Resource = 'transportation_lock_{dto.TransportationId}', @LockMode = 'Exclusive', @LockTimeout = 10000;");

// Re-fetch transportation + tickets
var transportation = await _transportationRepository.GetByIdWithTickets(dto.TransportationId);

// Validate seats
var seatCheck = ValidateTransportationAndSeats(transportation, dto.Travelers);
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(seatCheck)) return Result<long>.Error(0, seatCheck);

// Proceed with reservation
...

await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();
await transaction.CommitAsync();
```

---

## 🧠 Summary Table

|Strategy|Prevents Race?|Web-farm Safe|Recommended For|
|---|---|---|---|
|`sp_getapplock`|✅ Yes|✅ Yes|SQL Server web apps|
|EF raw SQL `WITH (UPDLOCK)`|✅ Yes|✅ Yes|SQL Server monoliths|
|`SemaphoreSlim`|✅ Yes|❌ No|Local-only apps|
|`FOR UPDATE`|✅ Yes|✅ Yes|PostgreSQL, MySQL|

---

Let me know your DB provider and environment (single-instance or multi-instance), and I can generate exact code tailored for that.
Perfect — you're absolutely right to want **the whole process to be atomic**:  
→ **Seat allocation**,  
→ **Ticket creation**,  
→ **Balance checking & payment**,  
→ **Transaction creation**,  
→ **Traveler creation/upsert**, etc.

This needs more than just _database-level locks_. You want to **serialize execution** for the same transportation to avoid concurrency conflicts — **across the entire flow**, not just the DB writes.

---

## ✅ Your Goal

> **For a given `TransportationId`, only one call to `CreateTicketOrderAsync` should execute at a time**, regardless of app instance or user.

This includes logic **outside EF** (like payment, seat assignment, person creation, etc.).

---

## 🛠️ The Right Solution: **Distributed Application Locking**

### Use **SQL Server’s `sp_getapplock`** to lock **by `TransportationId`**

Why?

- It locks **application-level logic**, not just SQL rows
    
- It works across threads, processes, and even app servers
    
- It ensures only **one process** can work on that transportation at a time
    

---

## ✅ How to Implement in Your Method

### 🔒 Step 1: Lock by Transportation ID

Add this at the **start** of your method:

```csharp
await _dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync(
    $"EXEC sp_getapplock @Resource = 'transportation_lock_{dto.TransportationId}', " +
    "@LockMode = 'Exclusive', @LockTimeout = 10000;");
```

This ensures that **only one call per transportation** runs at a time.

If a second request tries to lock the same ID, it waits up to 10 seconds.

---

### 🔁 Step 2: Begin EF Transaction

This will include all EF operations in a single atomic unit:

```csharp
using var transaction = await _dbContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync();
```

---

### 🧠 Step 3: Keep the Full Logic As Is, But Within Transaction

Like this:

```csharp
public async Task<Result<long>> CreateTicketOrderAsync(long accountId, CreateTicketOrderDto dto)
{
    // 🔒 Lock to prevent concurrency per transportation
    await _dbContext.Database.ExecuteSqlRawAsync(
        $"EXEC sp_getapplock @Resource = 'transportation_lock_{dto.TransportationId}', " +
        "@LockMode = 'Exclusive', @LockTimeout = 10000;");

    // 🧾 Begin transaction
    using var transaction = await _dbContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync();

    // 💰 Load account and transportation
    var account = await _accountRepository.GetByIdAsync(accountId);
    if (account == null) return Result<long>.Error(0, "Account not found");

    var transportation = await _transportationRepository.GetByIdAsync(dto.TransportationId);
    if (transportation == null) return Result<long>.Error(0, "Transportation not found");

    // 💵 Check balance
    var price = transportation.BasePrice * dto.Travelers.Count;
    if (account.CurrentBalance < price)
        return Result<long>.Error(0, "Not enough money");

    // ✅ Validate seat availability
    var seatCheck = ValidateTransportationAndSeats(transportation, dto.Travelers);
    if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(seatCheck))
        return Result<long>.Error(0, seatCheck);

    // 🪑 Assign seats (if dynamic logic)
    await AssignSeatsIfDynamic(transportation.VehicleId, dto.Travelers);

    // 👤 Upsert travelers (can also use same transaction)
    await UpsertTravelers(account.Id, dto.Travelers);

    // 🎟️ Create ticket order
    var ticketOrder = new TicketOrder
    {
        BuyerId = account.Id,
        CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow,
        Description = "",
        SerialNumber = Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"),
        TransportationId = dto.TransportationId,
    };
    await _ticketOrderRepository.AddAsync(ticketOrder);

    // 🎫 Add tickets
    foreach (var traveler in dto.Travelers)
    {
        var ticket = new Ticket
        {
            CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow,
            Description = traveler.Description,
            SeatId = traveler.SeatId!.Value,
            SerialNumber = Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"),
            TicketOrder = ticketOrder,
            TicketStatusId = 1,
            TravelerId = traveler.Id,
        };
        await _ticketRepository.AddAsync(ticket);
    }

    // 💳 Commit everything
    await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();

    // 💸 Withdraw money and create transaction
    await _accountService.PayForTicketOrderAsync(account.Id, ticketOrder.Id, price);

    // ✅ Commit transaction
    await transaction.CommitAsync();

    return Result<long>.Success(ticketOrder.Id);
}
```

---

## 🧱 Summary of Protection

|Step|Protected?|How|
|---|---|---|
|Prevent concurrent seat assignment|✅|`sp_getapplock` per `TransportationId`|
|Prevent concurrent DB changes|✅|EF `DbTransaction`|
|Prevent double-spend|✅|Balance check inside the same lock + transaction|
|Ensure traveler upserts/tickets are safe|✅|Wrapped in same transaction|

---

## ⚠️ Important Note

Make sure all the operations (`AssignSeatsIfDynamic`, `UpsertTravelers`, etc.):

- Use the **same `DbContext`/UnitOfWork**
    
- Don’t commit changes prematurely (no `SaveChangesAsync()` before you're ready to commit the whole transaction)
    

---

## ✅ Optional (Safety): Add retry logic

In case of a **deadlock or lock timeout**, you might want to retry the whole operation once.

---

Let me know if you want me to extract this into a reusable helper like:

```csharp
await _appLockService.ExecuteWithLockAsync($"transportation_lock_{dto.TransportationId}", async () => {
    // your reservation logic
});
```

That would clean things up nicely.
Sure. Let’s break down everything you need to know about **transactions** in Entity Framework Core (EF Core) — especially for your case where you're doing **complex operations that must all succeed or fail together**.

---

## 🧾 What is a Transaction?

A **transaction** is a unit of work that is treated as a **single, indivisible operation**. Either **all of it succeeds** (committed), or **none of it does** (rolled back).

### 🧠 Properties of a transaction (ACID):

|Property|Meaning|
|---|---|
|**Atomicity**|All steps succeed or none do|
|**Consistency**|DB remains valid before and after|
|**Isolation**|Transactions don’t interfere with each other|
|**Durability**|Once committed, data is persisted permanently|

---

## ✅ Why You Need Transactions

In your case, you’re:

- Assigning seats
    
- Creating or updating people
    
- Creating a `TicketOrder`
    
- Creating multiple `Tickets`
    
- Updating account balance & transaction history
    

All of these must either:

- Complete **fully and safely**, or
    
- **Fail entirely**, with no partial data left behind.
    

---

## 🧰 Transaction in EF Core: Full Example

### 🔧 Step-by-step Example:

```csharp
public async Task<Result<long>> CreateTicketOrderAsync(long accountId, CreateTicketOrderDto dto)
{
    // Begin EF Core transaction
    using var transaction = await _dbContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync();

    try
    {
        // Load required entities
        var account = await _accountRepository.GetByIdAsync(accountId);
        if (account == null)
            return Result<long>.Error(0, "Account not found");

        var transportation = await _transportationRepository.GetByIdAsync(dto.TransportationId);
        if (transportation == null)
            return Result<long>.Error(0, "Transportation not found");

        var price = transportation.BasePrice * dto.Travelers.Count;
        if (account.CurrentBalance < price)
            return Result<long>.Error(0, "Not enough money");

        // Validate seat assignment
        var seatCheck = ValidateTransportationAndSeats(transportation, dto.Travelers);
        if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(seatCheck))
            return Result<long>.Error(0, seatCheck);

        await AssignSeatsIfDynamic(transportation.VehicleId, dto.Travelers);
        await UpsertTravelers(account.Id, dto.Travelers);

        // Create ticket order
        var ticketOrder = new TicketOrder
        {
            BuyerId = account.Id,
            CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow,
            SerialNumber = Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"),
            TransportationId = dto.TransportationId,
        };
        await _ticketOrderRepository.AddAsync(ticketOrder);

        foreach (var traveler in dto.Travelers)
        {
            await _ticketRepository.AddAsync(new Ticket
            {
                CreatedAt = DateTime.UtcNow,
                Description = traveler.Description,
                SeatId = traveler.SeatId.Value,
                SerialNumber = Guid.NewGuid().ToString("N"),
                TicketOrder = ticketOrder,
                TicketStatusId = 1,
                TravelerId = traveler.Id,
            });
        }

        // Save changes
        await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();

        // Withdraw money from account
        await _accountService.PayForTicketOrderAsync(account.Id, ticketOrder.Id, price);

        // Commit transaction
        await transaction.CommitAsync();

        return Result<long>.Success(ticketOrder.Id);
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        // Rollback if anything failed
        await transaction.RollbackAsync();
        return Result<long>.Error(0, "Reservation failed: " + ex.Message);
    }
}
```

---

## 🔄 Isolation Levels (Advanced)

### You can specify isolation level when beginning a transaction:

```csharp
using var transaction = await _dbContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel.Serializable);
```

### Common levels:

|Isolation Level|Description|Use Case|
|---|---|---|
|`ReadCommitted` (default)|No dirty reads|Usually enough|
|`RepeatableRead`|Prevents non-repeatable reads|Seat assignment logic|
|`Serializable`|Full isolation (slower, safer)|Financial or reservation systems|

---

## 🧩 When `SaveChangesAsync()` Commits vs. Not

Calling `SaveChangesAsync()` **does not commit** the outer transaction — it just writes pending changes to the database.

The real commit happens only when you call:

```csharp
await transaction.CommitAsync();
```

If anything fails before that, the changes are **not persisted**.

---

## ✅ Best Practices for Transactions in EF Core

|Best Practice|Why|
|---|---|
|Keep transactions **short**|Locks and contention increase with time|
|Catch exceptions and **rollback**|Prevent dirty/incomplete data|
|Use **only one DbContext** inside the transaction|EF tracks entities via one unit of work|
|Don’t call SaveChanges too early|May break the atomicity|
|Use **appropriate isolation level**|Based on your concurrency needs|
|Consider retry policy for transient errors|Especially in distributed systems|

---

## ❗ Common Pitfalls

|Mistake|Problem|
|---|---|
|Mixing DbContext instances inside one transaction|Breaks consistency|
|Committing too early|Later failure still leaves partial data|
|Forgetting rollback in catch|Leaves transaction open or inconsistent|
|Async code outside transaction scope|Could break atomicity or introduce race|

---

## 🧠 Summary: Transaction Essentials

|Concept|Description|
|---|---|
|`BeginTransactionAsync()`|Starts a manual transaction|
|`SaveChangesAsync()`|Writes changes but doesn’t commit outer transaction|
|`CommitAsync()`|Finalizes all DB changes|
|`RollbackAsync()`|Reverts all changes since the transaction began|
|Scope|All EF/DB actions done within the transaction block|

---

If you'd like, I can create a **generic transaction helper**, or even make this a **middleware** or **interceptor**, depending on how reusable you want this to be.

Let me know!
Great! These questions show deep thinking about **how transactions and locks actually work** in EF Core and layered architecture. Let’s answer them one by one with real clarity and direction.

---

## ❓ 1. _"I have this method in my `TicketOrderService`, and I don't have access to `_dbContext`."_

### ✅ Solution:

If you're using **Repository + UnitOfWork pattern**, your `UnitOfWork` should expose a method to access the underlying **DbContext** or allow you to start a transaction.

**👉 Extend your `IUnitOfWork` interface like this:**

```csharp
public interface IUnitOfWork
{
    Task<int> SaveChangesAsync();
    Task<IDbContextTransaction> BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel level = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted);
    DbContext Context { get; } // optional
}
```

And in your implementation:

```csharp
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork
{
    private readonly AppDbContext _context;

    public UnitOfWork(AppDbContext context) => _context = context;

    public Task<int> SaveChangesAsync() => _context.SaveChangesAsync();

    public Task<IDbContextTransaction> BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel level = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted)
        => _context.Database.BeginTransactionAsync(level);

    public DbContext Context => _context;
}
```

### ✅ Then in your `TicketOrderService`:

```csharp
using var transaction = await _unitOfWork.BeginTransactionAsync();
// your operations
await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();
await transaction.CommitAsync();
```

This keeps your `Service` clean and architecture-respecting.

---

## ❓ 2. _"How does the transaction hold stuff? Wouldn’t `unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync()` just save everything?"_

### 🔍 Clarification:

- `SaveChangesAsync()` **writes the changes to the database**, but…
    
- **If you're in a transaction**, the database holds those changes in a **temporary, invisible state** until you explicitly call:
    

```csharp
await transaction.CommitAsync();
```

💡 If you **don’t commit**, or you **rollback**, then **those changes are discarded**, even if you called `SaveChangesAsync()`.

### 👇 Timeline of how EF works in a transaction:

1. EF tracks entities in memory.
    
2. You call `SaveChangesAsync()`.
    
3. Changes are written to the DB — but:
    
    - If inside a transaction, they are **not visible to others yet**.
        
    - They are held until `CommitAsync()`.
        
4. If you call `RollbackAsync()`, all writes are undone.
    

---

## ❓ 3. _"How would the lock know that the work with that transportation is finished?"_

### 🔒 About `sp_getapplock`:

This SQL Server feature locks a **named resource** (like `transportation_lock_123`) for **the duration of the current SQL connection and transaction**.

Here’s how it works:

|Action|Result|
|---|---|
|You call `sp_getapplock`|SQL Server grants an exclusive lock for the resource|
|You complete the transaction (commit or rollback)|Lock is **automatically released**|
|Your connection is closed or disposed|Lock is released|

### 🔍 So you don’t need to manually release the lock.

Just make sure:

- The **lock and transaction use the same connection**
    
- You commit or rollback after the work is done
    

✅ EF Core handles all that automatically when using `Database.BeginTransactionAsync()`.

---

## ✅ Final Advice Recap

|Question|Answer|
|---|---|
|I don’t have access to `_dbContext`|Expose `BeginTransactionAsync` on your `IUnitOfWork`|
|How does transaction matter if I save mid-way?|It isolates changes — no one sees them until committed|
|How does lock get released?|Automatically when transaction completes or connection closes|

---

Let me know if you want:

- Sample `UnitOfWork` and `Repository` setup for full support
    
- A lock + transaction helper method
    
- Unit tests to simulate concurrent reservations
    

You're doing great — this is how robust, real-world software gets built.

You've unpacked crucial concerns around **transactions**, **unit-of-work (UoW)**, and **application-wide consistency**. Here's a polished breakdown with clear answers and guidance:

---

### ✅ 1. Is it okay to use both Transactions **and** Unit of Work?

- **Yes, absolutely.** UoW is a design pattern that groups multiple repository operations into one logical unit, while a _transaction_ ensures these operations either all succeed or all fail atomically ([antondevtips.com](https://antondevtips.com/blog/implementing-unit-of-work-pattern-in-ef-core?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Implementing Unit of Work Pattern in EF Core - Anton DevTips")).
    
- In EF Core, the **DbContext itself implements UoW**, collecting changes in memory until `SaveChangesAsync()` is called ([reddit.com](https://www.reddit.com/r/dotnet/comments/17npjtx/unit_of_work_pattern_still_necessary_in_net_8/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Unit of Work Pattern still necessary in .NET 8? : r/dotnet - Reddit")).
    
- When you execute **multiple SaveChanges**, or include non-repository logic (e.g., balance updates, payment creation, seat locking), **explicit transactions** ensure the entire flow remains atomic .
    

---

### ✅ 2. How exactly to open/close transactions? Where to be careful?

#### ✨ Use EF to manage transactions in your UoW:

1. **Extend your `IUnitOfWork`** to include transaction methods:
    
    ```csharp
    Task<IDbContextTransaction> BeginTransactionAsync(IsolationLevel level = ReadCommitted);
    Task<int> SaveChangesAsync();
    ```
    
2. **In your service**, do:
    
    ```csharp
    using var tx = await _unitOfWork.BeginTransactionAsync();
    try {
      // perform all operations (seat locks, entity changes, balance, tickets)
      await _unitOfWork.SaveChangesAsync();
      await tx.CommitAsync();
    } catch {
      await tx.RollbackAsync();
      throw;
    }
    ```
    
3. **Know the boundaries**: Keep the transaction as short as possible. Open it before critical operations and close it after the final `CommitAsync()`.
    

> 💡 Use `(IsolationLevel.Serializable)` for scenarios like seat reservation where concurrent writes must be prevented ([milanjovanovic.tech](https://www.milanjovanovic.tech/blog/working-with-transactions-in-ef-core?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Working With Transactions In EF Core"), [learn.microsoft.com](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/mvc/overview/older-versions/getting-started-with-ef-5-using-mvc-4/implementing-the-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Implementing the Repository and Unit of Work Patterns in an ASP ...")).

---

### ✅ 3. Why did things “work” without explicit transactions?

- **Simple SaveChanges** calls act like atomic units—if they fail, nothing is saved. With just one SaveChanges call, EF wraps it in a default transaction ([stackoverflow.com](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24636352/unit-of-work-i-dont-need-to-use-transactions?utm_source=chatgpt.com "c# - unit of work - I don't need to use transactions? - Stack Overflow")).
    
- However, as soon as your workflow involves **multiple SaveChanges**, **external services**, or **cross-repository updates**, the default behavior is no longer sufficient. A failure midway could leave your data in a partial state.
    
- That's where **explicit transaction scopes** come in—to guarantee everything is batched and rolled back if any part fails ([antondevtips.com](https://antondevtips.com/blog/implementing-unit-of-work-pattern-in-ef-core?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Implementing Unit of Work Pattern in EF Core - Anton DevTips")).
    

---

### 🧠 TL;DR Summary

|Concept|Purpose|When Needed|
|---|---|---|
|**Unit of Work**|Organizes multiple EF operations into one commit|Always used with EF DbContext|
|**Implicit transaction**|EF wraps each SaveChanges automatically|Ok for single SaveChanges calls|
|**Explicit transaction**|Manually control commit/rollback across many operations|Needed when multiple SaveChanges, external services, concurrency, etc.|
|**IsolationLevel.Serializable**|Highest locking level to prevent concurrent conflicts|Use for critical resource locks (e.g., seat booking)|
|**Be careful**|Keep transactions short to avoid locks and deadlocks|Avoid long-running operations inside the transaction|

---

If you want, I can provide:

- **Code templates** for UoW with transaction management
    
- **Interceptor or decorator** to automate transaction handling in your services
    
- **Concurrency demos** to test seat reservation under load
    

Just say the word!
Absolutely! Let’s clarify both of your statements with authoritative sources:

---

## 1. If I haven't called `BeginTransaction` and call `SaveChanges`, will changes be saved?

✅ **Yes.** EF Core automatically wraps **every** `SaveChanges()` call in its **own transaction**. This means:

- If **all operations succeed**, the data is saved.
- If **anything fails**, the entire set is **rolled back**, leaving the DB unchanged. citeturn0search0turn0search9

🔁 So even without explicitly starting a transaction, `SaveChanges()` ensures atomicity for that batch of changes.

---

## 2. If I have called `BeginTransaction`, and then call `SaveChanges`, do changes go to the DB immediately?

✅ **Yes, but context matters.** When you wrap operations in an explicit transaction:

- Each `SaveChanges()` writes within that transaction.
- However, **none** of these writes become visible to other connections until you call `Commit()`.

EF also uses **savepoints** internally (for multiple `SaveChanges()` calls) to enable partial rollbacks without rolling back the entire transaction. citeturn0search0turn0search2turn0search3

---

### 🧩 In Plain English

| Scenario        | SaveChanges Only                                | BeginTransaction + SaveChanges                     |
|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
| No transaction   | Auto-wrapped in its own transaction–immediate.  | —                                                 |
| With explicit transaction | Writes are within the transaction, not yet committed. | ✔ |
| Rollback before commit | Not possible. SaveChanges is final.         | ✔ Rolls everything back.                          |

---

### ✅ TL;DR

- ✅ **Without `BeginTransaction`**: `SaveChanges()` is atomic per call—commits or rolls back automatically.
- ✅ **With `BeginTransaction`**: `SaveChanges()` writes into the transaction, but the changes are **held until** you call `Commit()`; `Rollback()` discards them all.

---

Want some **ready-to-use code** to introduce `BeginTransaction()` into your UnitOfWork and services? Just let me know and I’ll supply a clean implementation!