I am getting the following error when I deploy a Vaadin 14 web application on Tomcat 9.0.46
Caused by: com.vaadin.flow.server.AmbiguousRouteConfigurationException: Navigation targets must have unique routes, found navigation targets 'xx.SForceFindPaymentView' and 'xx.SForceFindPaymentView' with parameter have the same route.
The class is defined as follows:
#Route(value = "sf-find-payment", layout = MainLayout.class)
#PageTitle("Find Payment")
public class SForceFindPaymentView extends FindPaymentView implements HasUrlParameter<String>, IAAPConnection {
And the parent class is defined as follows:
#PageTitle("Find Payment")
#Route(value = "find-payment", layout = MainLayout.class)
public class FindPaymentView extends VerticalLayout implements HasUrlParameter<String>, IAAPConnection {
The only difference between the parent class and the derived class is the way the parameters are handled in the setParameter() method.
The setParameter method has the following signature
#Override
public void setParameter(final BeforeEvent event, #OptionalParameter final String parameter) {
The odd thing is if I delete the war and redeploy the exact same war file the problem goes away and the application installs successfully.
I tried removing the #OptionalParameter annotation but that made no difference. The error message seems to see two routes for the same class, one with a parameter and one without so I thought if I removed the #OptionalParameter in both the parent and derived class, that might help but it made no difference.
Grateful for any suggestions.
Related
I am writing an application with Xamarin.Android with MvvmCross. I want my Activity to inherit from MvxAppCompatActivity so that I can use fragments. Here is my base class:
public class BaseActivity<TViewModel> : MvxAppCompatActivity<TViewModel> where TViewModel : MvxViewModel
{
public new TViewModel ViewModel
{
get { return base.ViewModel; }
set { base.ViewModel = value; }
}
}
I get this error on the OnCreate of my Activity:
Failed resolution of: Landroid/support/v7/appcompat/R$drawable; Didn't
find class "android.support.v7.appcompat.R$drawable" on path:
DexPathList...
But if I change MvxAppCompatActivity to MvxActivity it works fine...why?
I downloaded your solution and tried to build the Android project. It fails with 18 occurrences of the same error:
error: No resource identifier found for attribute 'loginButtonBackgroundColor' in package ...
So after a little inspection of your solution, I did the following steps to solve your issue:
1) In login_screen.axml I saw you had this line:
xmlns:[YOURNAMESPACE]="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/[YOUR PACKAGE]"
Which is unnecessary. After removing it, and changing the lines [YOURNAMESPACE]:loginButtonBackgroundColor=... to local:loginButtonBackgroundColor=... the build succeeds.
2) I saw some layout files are located inside the /drawable folder (button_round_corner.xml, input_box.xml and login_button.xml). I moved them to the /layout folder and fixed the issues the change produced (only two).
3) Made Setup class inherit from MvxAppCompatSetup.
4) Added a RegisterAttribute over the LoginButton control. So the class definition looks like this:
using Android.Runtime;
...
namespace Xxx.Droid.Components
{
[Register(nameof(LoginButton))]
public class LoginButton : FrameLayout, IMvxNotifyPropertyChanged
{
...
}
}
And that's it! Probably (2) was not necessary, but leaving it here just in case.
It could be several things but it is probably the lack of some android support packages. Mainly the lack of Xamarin.Android.Support.Design gives that error. So check if you have that added and if not add it and it should solve your problem.
If it doesn't it's highly likely you lack some other android support packages
'm trying to create a reusable link class that extends Link. I have a webpage with about 7 menu items and I'm using inheritance for my application. I want to create a reusable link class to shorten the length of my code..
As of now the link creates and runs fine when I add(new Link....) as an anonymous class inside oninitialize().
The custom link class (which is an inner class of the base page) works fine when I hard code the instance of the new page to go to, and assign it to a "Page" reference, then pass it into setResponsePage();
The problem is, I'm passing trying to be able to pass object through the constructor generically. When I pass it through the constructor, and try to travel to the new page, I get a session has expired.
I've tried using generics for the class, and I've also tried just declaring a Page reference as a parameter value. Am I supposed to use some sort of Model? Or can someone provide an example of how to do this? I want to be able to use this custom link class to add new links for the 7 menu items, which each have there own class...
Code that works:
add(new Link("userPageLink")
{
public void onClick()
{
pageTitle = "User";
Page next = new UserPage();
setResponsePage(next);
}
});
Modified code that gives page expired upon click:
public class CustomLinkToNewPage extends Link
{
private String title;
private Page next;
public CustomLinkToNewPage(String id, String title, Page newPage)
{
super(id);
next = newPage;
this.title = title;
}
#Override
public void onClick()
{
SSAPage.pageTitle = title;
setResponsePage(next);
}
}
This might be due to the fact that in the first version you crate the Page object when the onClick method of the Link object is called and in the second version, the Page object is created on Page-construction (way earlier).
You might get the result if you pass the Pageclass of the responsepage instead on an instance.
Component features setters for these either with
public final <C extends IRequestablePage> void setResponsePage(java.lang.Class<C> cls, PageParameters parameters)
or without parameters.
public final <C extends IRequestablePage> void setResponsePage(java.lang.Class<C> cls)
See Javadoc for more information.
I ended up doing:
public class CustomLinkToNewPage<T extends SSAPage> extends Link
SSAPage is my base page that extends WebPage... So any object passed in to this class's constructor must extend SSAPage as well.
public CustomLinkToNewPage(String id, Class<T> name)
Then I passed in the .class reference to the object, and created a new instance of the object using reflection.. then set that instance to Page, and passed it to setResponsePage in my onClick. Worked nicely, as I couldn't figure out how to do Nicktar's way. So this an alternative in case anyone else runs into this issue.
First of all I would like to remark I am new with the concept of prism, DI and containers. I am looking on one of the code samples provided with the Prism Library:
The code simply injects a view with the "Hello World" string (in a TextBlock element) to a region in the shell.
When the application starts-up, it creates a new BootStrapper instance, which creates and initializes the shell:
public class Bootstrapper : UnityBootstrapper
{
protected override DependencyObject CreateShell()
{
return Container.Resolve<Shell>();
}
protected override void InitializeShell()
{
base.InitializeShell();
Application.Current.RootVisual = (UIElement)this.Shell;
}
protected override void ConfigureModuleCatalog()
{
base.ConfigureModuleCatalog();
ModuleCatalog moduleCatalog = (ModuleCatalog)this.ModuleCatalog;
moduleCatalog.AddModule(typeof(HelloWorldModule.HelloWorldModule));
}
}
My question refers to the method CreateShell(). I couldnt find nowhere in the supplied code (including not in a configuration file or any xaml file...) where do they register the type Shell, and even if it was registered - the supplies Shell class doesnt implement any interface... what is the meaning of resolving a specific type?
the Shell implementation:
public partial class Shell : UserControl
{
public Shell()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
}
This looks like a magic to me, so I tried to create my own type (MyType) and resolve it the same way:
Container.Resolve<MyType>();
By setting a breakepoint inside MyType constructor, I saw that it DID resolved MyType. Can somebody please explain to me how does it work?
These couple of threads should answer your question:
http://compositewpf.codeplex.com/Thread/View.aspx?ThreadId=230051
Does unity just make clasess with out needing anything registered?
Additionally, if you are eager to get more detail into how Unity can do this, simple download Unity 2.0 and open the source code that is provided with the installer.
I hope this helps.
Thanks,
Damian
You do not need to register a type you want to resolve. You need to register the dependencies of a type, that you want to resolve. In this case, the Shell doesn't need any dependencies, so you can resolve it simply. But for an example (not really), if your shell getting an interface IService as a parameter, then you must register IService, before you resolve Shell.
Otherwise you will get Dependency Resolution Failed Exception. In Prism 4.1 it will be swallowed silently due to TryResolve.
Recently I've switched to Ninject 2.0 release and started getting the following error:
Error occured: Error activating SomeController
More than one matching bindings are available.
Activation path:
1) Request for SomeController
Suggestions:
1) Ensure that you have defined a binding for SomeController only once.
However, I'm unable to find certain reproduction path. Sometimes it occurs, sometimes it does not.
I'm using NinjectHttpApplication for automatic controllers injection. Controllers are defined in separate assembly:
public class App : NinjectHttpApplication
{
protected override IKernel CreateKernel()
{
INinjectModule[] modules = new INinjectModule[] {
new MiscModule(),
new ProvidersModule(),
new RepositoryModule(),
new ServiceModule()
};
return new StandardKernel(modules);
}
protected override void OnApplicationStarted()
{
RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);
RegisterAllControllersIn("Sample.Mvc");
base.OnApplicationStarted();
}
/* ............. */
}
Maybe someone is familiar with this error.
Any advice?
I finally figured this issue out recently. Apparently, the NinjectHttpApplication.RegisterAllControllersIn() function doesn't do all of the proper bindings needed. It binds your concrete controller implementations to IController requests. For example, if you have a controller class called SampleMvcController, which inherits from System.Web.Mvc.Controller. It would do the following named binding during application start:
kernel.Bind<IController>().To(SampleMvcController).InTransientScope().Named("SampleMvc");
But when debugging the NinjectControllerFactory, I find that request are being made for the Ninject Kernel to return an object for the class "SampleMvcController", not for a concrete implementation of IController, using the named binding of "SampleMvc".
Because of this, when the first web request that involves the SampleMvcController is made, it creates a binding of SampleMvcController to itself. This is not thread safe though. So if you have several web requests being made at once, the bindings can potentially happen more than once, and now you are left with this error for having multiple bindings for the SampleMvcController.
You can verify this by quickly refreshing an MVC URL, right after causing your web application to restart.
The fix:
The simplest way to fix this issue is to create a new NinjectModule for your controller bindings, and to load this module during application start. Within this module, you self bind each of your defined controllers, like so:
class ControllerModule : StandardModule {
public override Load() {
Bind<SampleMvcController>().ToSelf();
Bind<AnotherMvcController>().ToSelf();
}
}
But if you don't mind changing the Ninject source code, you can modify the RegisterAllControllersIn() function to self bind each controller it comes across.
I have been dealing with this problem for months. I tried so many options but was unable to come to a solution. I knew that it was a threading problem because it would only occur when there was a heavy load on my site. Just recently a bug was reported and fixed in the ninject source code that solves this problem.
Here is a reference to the issue. It was fixed in build 2.1.0.70 of the Ninject source. The key change was in KernelBase.cs by removing the line
context.Plan = planner.GetPlan(service);
and replacing it with
lock (planner)
{
context.Plan = planner.GetPlan(service);
}
To use this new build with MVC you will need to get the latest build of Ninject then get the latest build of ninject.web.mvc. Build ninject.web.mvc with the new Ninject build.
I have been using this new build for about a week with a heavy load and no problems. That is the longest it has gone without a problem so I would consider this to be a solution.
Are you sure you really are creating a single completely new Kernel from scratch in your OnApplicationStarted every time it's invoked ? If you're not and you're actually creating it once but potentially running the registration bit twice. Remember that you're not guaranteed to only ever have one App class instantiated ever within a given AppDomain.
My answer was a bit more obvious.
I had declared the binding for one of my controllers more than once during refactor of my code.
I added this to my global.ascx.cs file:
public void RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly assembly)
{
RegisterAllControllersInFix(assembly, GetControllerName);
}
public void RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly assembly, Func<Type, string> namingConvention)
{
foreach (Type type in assembly.GetExportedTypes().Where(IsController))
Kernel.Bind(type).ToSelf();
}
private static bool IsController(Type type)
{
return typeof(IController).IsAssignableFrom(type) && type.IsPublic && !type.IsAbstract && !type.IsInterface;
}
private static string GetControllerName(Type type)
{
string name = type.Name.ToLowerInvariant();
if (name.EndsWith("controller"))
name = name.Substring(0, name.IndexOf("controller"));
return name;
}
Then called it from my OnApplicationStarted() method as follows:
RegisterAllControllersIn(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
RegisterAllControllersInFix(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
Difficult to know whether this fixed it though because it's so intermittent.
In the C# language, using StructureMap 2.5.4, targeting .NET Framework 3.5 libraries.
I've taken the step to support multiple Profiles in a structure map DI setup, using ServiceLocator model with Bootstrapper activation. First setup was loading default registry, using the scanner.
Now I like to determine runtime what Registry configuration I like to use. Scanning and loading multiple assemblies with registries.
Seems it's not working for the actual implementation (Getting the 202, default instance not found), but a stripped test version does work. The following setup.
Two assemblies containing Registries and implementations
Scanning them in running AppDomain, providing the shared Interface, and requesting Creation Of Instance, using the interfaces in constructor (which get dealt with thanx to the profile on Invokation)
Working code sample below (same structure for other setup, but with more complex stuff, that get's a 202):
What type of couses are possible for a 202, specifically naming the System.Uri type, not being handles by a default type?? (uri makes no sense)
// let structure map create instance of class tester, that provides the registered
// interfaces in the registries to the constructor of tester.
public class Tester<TPOCO>
{
private ITestMe<TPOCO> _tester;
public Tester(ITestMe<TPOCO> some)
{
_tester = some;
}
public string Exec()
{
return _tester.Execute();
}
}
public static class Main {
public void ExecuteDIFunction() {
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<Tester<string>>().Exec();
}
}
public class ImplementedTestMe<TSome> : ITestMe<TSome>
{
public string Execute()
{
return "Special Execution";
}
}
public class RegistryForSpecial : Registry
{
public RegistryForSpecial()
{
CreateProfile("Special",
gc =>
{
gc.For(typeof(ITestMe<>)).UseConcreteType(typeof(ImplementedTestMe<>));
});
}
}
Background articles on Profiles I used.
How to setup named instances using StructureMap profiles?
http://devlicio.us/blogs/derik_whittaker/archive/2009/01/07/setting-up-profiles-in-structuremap-2-5.aspx
http://structuremap.sourceforge.net/RegistryDSL.htm
EDIT:
It seemed the missing interface was actually the one being determined runtime. So here is the next challange (and solved):
I provided a default object whenever StructureMap needs to create the object. Like:
x.ForRequestedType<IConnectionContext>()
.TheDefault.Is.Object(new WebServiceConnection());
This way I got rid of the 202 error, because now a real instance could be used whever structure map needed the type.
Next was the override on runtime. That did not work out at first using the ObjectFactory.Configure method. Instead I used the ObjectFactory.Inject method to overide the default instance. Works like a charm.
ObjectFactory.Inject(typeof(IConnectionContext), context);
Loving the community effort.
Error code 202 means a default instance could not be built for the requested type. Your test code is apparently not equal to your real code that fails. If you are getting an error about Uri, you likely have a dependency that requires a Uri in its constructor. It may not be the class you are asking for - it may be one of that classes dependendencies - or one of the dependencies dependencies... somewhere down the line someone is asking StructureMap to resolve a Uri, which it cannot do, without some help from you.