I have a service inside an azure function
public MyService(
IConfigurationProvider configurationProvider,
ISerializationHelperService serializationHelperService,
ICommandListBuilder commandListBuilder,
[CosmosDB(
StaticSettings.Db,
StaticSettings.MyCollection.Collection,
ConnectionStringSetting = StaticSettings.DbConnectionStringSetting)] IDocumentClient documentClient)
{
//my logic here - this does get hit
}
My service is instantiated however, documentClient is null
How can I get this to be set properly? I dont get any errors
I have checked and there are no issues with the connection settings
public const string Db = "mydbname";
public const string DbConnectionStringSetting = "CosmosDBConnection";
public static class MyCollection
{
public const string Collection = "mycollectionname";
public static Uri CollectionUri => UriFactory.CreateDocumentCollectionUri(Db, Collection);
}
I am using a Startup class with an AddServices method to setup DI
Do I need to put something in there?
Paul
I have Azure function v2 project and I'm able to inject all my dependencies. Below lines added for IDocumentClient
string databaseEndPoint = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("DatabaseEndPoint");
string databaseKey = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("DatabaseKey");
builder.Services.AddSingleton<IDocumentClient>(new DocumentClient(new System.Uri(databaseEndPoint), databaseKey,
new ConnectionPolicy
{
ConnectionMode = ConnectionMode.Direct,
ConnectionProtocol = Protocol.Tcp,
RequestTimeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5),//Groupasset sync has some timeout issue with large payload
// Customize retry options for Throttled requests
RetryOptions = new RetryOptions()
{
MaxRetryAttemptsOnThrottledRequests = 5,
MaxRetryWaitTimeInSeconds = 60
}
}
));
My Database Service
protected readonly IDocumentClient client;
protected BaseDao(IDocumentClient client)
{
this.client = client;
}
hope it will help!
Related
I'm developing a web application with ASP.NET Core (MVC) that will display some information to a group of users. They will be authenticated using Windows Athentication. I recently started using SignalR because I want them to receive push notifications based on certain actions that are triggered from another program that is written in Python. That Python program send HTTP post requests to an API controller within the web app. However I want those notifications to be sent to specific users.
Here's my post method in the api controller:
[HttpPost]
public void Post([FromBody] Notice notice)
{
//_pushHub.Clients.All.SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
_pushHub.Clients.User(_nuidProvider.GetUserId(_connection)).SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
}
It receives an object of class Notice which has two fields: Title and Body.
Then I send those values by using the method SendAsync(). When I execute it for all clients, it gets sent successfully. However, since I need it to be sent to specific users, I tried following these instructions: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/signalr/authn-and-authz?view=aspnetcore-5.0
I created this class as suggested:
namespace MyApp.Services
{
public class NameUserIdProvider : IUserIdProvider
{
public string GetUserId(HubConnectionContext connection)
{
return connection.User?.Identity?.Name;
}
}
}
Then I added this to the StartUp at ConfigureServices:
services.AddSingleton<IUserIdProvider, NameUserIdProvider>();
services.AddSignalR();
And lastly, I modified the JS file to include the sentence: options.UseDefaultCredentials = true; as suggested in the instructions:
const conn = new signalR.HubConnectionBuilder().withUrl('/pushHub', options => {
options.UseDefaultCredentials = true;
}).build();
conn.on('ReceiveMessage', (title, body) => {
const t = title.replace(/&/g, '&').replace(/</g, '<').replace(/>/g, '>');
const b = body.replace(/&/g, '&').replace(/</g, '<').replace(/>/g, '>');
const date = new Date().toLocaleTimeString();
const msg = date + ' ' + t + ' ' + b;
const li = document.createElement('li');
li.innerHTML = msg;
document.getElementById('msgsList').appendChild(li);
Push.create(title, {
body: body,
timeout: 9000
});
});
conn.start().catch(err => console.error(err.toString()));
The complete api controller looks like this, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right:
namespace MyApp.Controllers.api
{
[Route("api/[controller]")]
[ApiController]
public class NoticesController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly IHubContext<PushHub> _pushHub;
private readonly IUserIdProvider _nuidProvider;
private readonly HubConnectionContext _connection;
public NoticesController(IHubContext<PushHub> pushHub, IUserIdProvider nuidProvider, HubConnectionContext connection)
{
_pushHub = pushHub;
_nuidProvider = nuidProvider;
_connection = connection;
}
// POST api/<NoticesController>
[HttpPost]
public void Post([FromBody] Notice notice)
{
//_pushHub.Clients.All.SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
_pushHub.Clients.User(_nuidProvider.GetUserId(_connection)).SendAsync("ReceiveMessage", notice.Title, notice.Body);
}
}
}
I think I'm not passing a proper connection object to the GetUserId method.
Any advice will be completely appreciated. Thanks!
When setting up a MartenDB datastore in ASP.Net Core, you normally put code like this in your Startup.cs:
services.AddMarten(o =>
{
o.Connection(configuration.GetConnectionString("MyDatabase"));
o.AutoCreateSchemaObjects = AutoCreate.All;
o.Serializer(new JsonNetSerializer { EnumStorage = EnumStorage.AsString });
});
This allows you to then inject IDocumentSession and IDocumentStore into your various classes for working with that database.
Now what do you do if you have to connect to a second database? I looked at the ISessionFactory but it is not apparent that you can change the connection string from here. Do you need to manually create and register a new DocumentStore?
To answer my own question, I wound up creating a custom DocumentStore and ISessionFactory for each database I wanted to connect to, and then injecting the custom SessionFactory.
Here's the code (only showing one instance of each class for the sake of brevity. Just replace Db1 with Db2 for the second version of each class):
The custom DocumentStore:
public class Db1Store : DocumentStore
{
public Db1Store(StoreOptions options) : base(options)
{
}
}
The custom SessionFactory:
public class Db1SessionFactory : ISessionFactory
{
private readonly Db1Store store;
public Db1SessionFactory(Db1Store store)
{
this.store = store;
}
public IQuerySession QuerySession()
{
return store.QuerySession();
}
public IDocumentSession OpenSession()
{
return store.OpenSession();
}
}
The service registration (this replaces the services.AddMarten call):
services.AddSingleton(p =>
{
var options = new StoreOptions();
options.Connection(configuration.GetConnectionString("DB1"));
options.AutoCreateSchemaObjects = AutoCreate.All;
options.Serializer(new JsonNetSerializer { EnumStorage = EnumStorage.AsString });
return new Db1Store(options);
});
services.AddSingleton<Db1SessionFactory>();
Then you inject the Db1SessionFactory instance into your class, and run a query like this:
var result = await db1SessionFactory.QuerySession().Query<MyAwesomeTable>().ToListAsync();
Downsides:
I would prefer to inject the QuerySession or DocumentSession, but I can't see a way to do that without moving to Autofac or a similar DI Container that supports named instances.
I am not sure what downsides there will be creating these QuerySession/DocumentSessions in this manner. It may be a bad tradeoff.
Problem:
I have webapi serviss where almost every user has its own database instance to connect. So i have to set different connection string for each user. To recognize user i will pass specific Token into header. Regarding on this Token, system has to build and set differenct connection string into Data Access layer constructor (Order in this case)
Question:
Is it possible to pass argument to Ninject or any kind of IoC binder regarding on request header?
IOrders _orders;
public HomeController(IOrders order)
{
_orders = order;
}
Here is an Ninject binding, but as you can guess, HttpContext.Current is null.
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
var some_value = HttpContext.Current.Request.Headers.GetValues("Token");
kernel.Bind<IOrders>()
.To<Orders>()
.WhenInjectedInto<HomeController>()
.WithConstructorArgument("Token", some_value);
}
Maybe there is much elegant way to do this using Controller Factory ?
I would create a service class that does this lookup for you. then inject this service into the Orders implementation.
public interface IRequestContext {
string ConnectionString {get;}
}
public class HttpHeaderRequestContext : IRequestContext {
public string ConnectionString {
get {
var token = HttpContext.Current.Request.Headers.GetValues("Token");
// .. lookup conn string based on token
}
}
}
public class Orders : IOrders {
public Orders(IRequestContext ctx) {
// create new connection w/ ctx.ConnectionString
}
}
using this method, the lookup of headers and connection strings is abstracted away from the implementation. this makes it easier to test and easier swap out with a different method of obtaining a connection string if the need arises.
After implementing Dave approach, i realized that i could solve this connection string injection by feeding HttpContext.Current into Ninject binding like this:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
kernel.Bind<IOrders>()
.To<Orders>()
.WhenInjectedInto<HomeController>()
.WithConstructorArgument("smth", x => {
var token = HttpContext.Current.Request.Headers.Get("Token");
var _db = new SomeDataCxt();
var connStr = _db.DbStringRepository.GetByToken(token);
return connStr;
});
}
So I'm trying to use Autofac Automocking in ASP.NET MVC 5, but for some reason I can't get it to work.
Here's the test so far:
using (var mock = AutoMock.GetLoose())
{
const string mainUserID = "MainUserID";
const string otherUserID = "OtherUserID";
ApplicationUser user = new ApplicationUser()
{
Id = mainUserID,
UserName = "TestUser"
};
var dataProvider = mock.Mock<IDataProtectionProvider>();
dataProvider.DefaultValue = DefaultValue.Mock;
var userManagerMock = mock.Mock<ApplicationUserManager>();
}
The test fails when mocking the ApplicationUserManager. The error is this:
Result StackTrace:
at Autofac.Extras.Moq.AutoMock.Mock[T](Parameter[] parameters)
at AwenterWeb_NUnit.AccountControllerTest.<Deactivate_User>d__0.MoveNext() in C:\Users\Fabis\Documents\Docs\Kvalifikācijas darbs 2015\AwenterWeb\AwenterWeb-NUnit\AccountControllerTest.cs:line 51
at NUnit.Framework.AsyncInvocationRegion.AsyncTaskInvocationRegion.WaitForPendingOperationsToComplete(Object invocationResult)
at NUnit.Core.NUnitAsyncTestMethod.RunTestMethod()
Result Message: System.InvalidCastException : Unable to cast object of type 'AwenterWeb.ApplicationUserManager' to type 'Moq.IMocked`1[AwenterWeb.ApplicationUserManager]'.
The same thing happens when trying to automock the ApplicationDbContext and it has a very simple constructor, so there shouldn't even be any issues with it.
I'm new to Mocking - what should I do in this scenario?
Edit: Also kind of an unrelated question, maybe you guys know - I've noticed that when creating a Moq for a DbSet using a list created previously in the test, I have to do this:
var dbSetMock = new Mock<IDbSet<DbEntity>>();
dbSetMock.Setup(m => m.Provider).Returns(data.Provider);
dbSetMock.Setup(m => m.Expression).Returns(data.Expression);
dbSetMock.Setup(m => m.ElementType).Returns(data.ElementType);
dbSetMock.Setup(m => m.GetEnumerator()).Returns(data.GetEnumerator());
It seems really unintuitive. Is there a way to just tell the mock to take the list? So something like:
dbSetMock.Setup(m => m).Returns(data);
Or any other way to create a DbSet Moq from an existing list quickly without having to write those 4 extra lines?
If you look at ligne 73 of MoqRegistrationHandler.cs you can see that only interface is moqable using Autofac.Extras.Moq
var typedService = service as TypedService;
if (typedService == null ||
!typedService.ServiceType.IsInterface ||
typedService.ServiceType.IsGenericType && typedService.ServiceType.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(IEnumerable<>) ||
typedService.ServiceType.IsArray ||
typeof(IStartable).IsAssignableFrom(typedService.ServiceType))
return Enumerable.Empty<IComponentRegistration>();
var rb = RegistrationBuilder.ForDelegate((c, p) => CreateMock(c, typedService))
.As(service)
.InstancePerLifetimeScope();
You can change the code but it may be quite difficult to make it works with non parameter less dependency.
Can your dependencies be changed to use an interface instead of a concrete class ? if it is not possible and/or if it doesn't make sense, you can use the MockRepository to create your non parameter-less component and then inject it on the AutoMock class.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var mock = AutoMock.GetLoose())
{
/// configure your non interface component with constructor parameters
/// if foo need more complex parameters you can get them
/// using mock.Mock<T>().Object
var fooMock = mock.MockRepository.Create<Foo>((String)null);
fooMock.SetupGet(f => f.Value).Returns("test");
// insert your instance into the container
mock.Provide<Foo>(fooMock.Object);
var bar = mock.Create<Bar>();
Console.WriteLine(bar.GetValue());
}
}
}
public class Foo
{
public Foo(String value)
{
this._value = value;
}
private readonly String _value;
public virtual String Value
{
get
{
return this._value;
}
}
}
public interface IBar
{
String GetValue();
}
public class Bar : IBar
{
public Bar(Foo foo)
{
this._foo = foo;
}
private readonly Foo _foo;
public String GetValue()
{
return this._foo.Value;
}
}
It is not a perfect solution but without big refactoring of the Autofac.Extras.Moq project I can't see any simpler way to do it.
I have created a web service with ServiceStack which returns List<SyncUserDTO>.
It has more properties, but I simplified it to one field, Timestamp.
[DataContract]
public class SyncUserDTO
{
public SyncUserDTO()
{
Timestamp = new TimestampDTO();
}
[DataMember(Order = 1)]
public TimestampDTO Timestamp { get; set; }
}
[DataContract]
public class TimestampDTO
{
[DataMember]
public bool DataValid { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public DateTime? Value { get; set; }
}
The service seems to work perfectly (with other tests), but when I create a client console application and Add Service Reference, the SyncUserDTO does not have the constructor, meaning this doesn't work:
static void SendUsersServiceReference()
{
var users = new List<SyncUserDTO>();
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
var user = new SyncUserDTO();
user.Timestamp.Value = DateTime.Now; // NullReferenceException,
user.Timestamp.DataValid = true; // as Timestamp is null
}
}
When pressing F12 on SyncUserDTO, I can't seem to find any Constructor method in Reference.cs, explaining why the above doesn't work.
But why is the constructor not created in my proxy classes in the client application?
I need to do the "construction" myself in the client, and then it works:
var user = new SyncUserDTO() { Timestamp = new TimestampDTO() };
Of cause, I don't want the people who consumes my service to have to create this themselves. They should really note care about the underlying TimestampDTO. The constructor should do this.
Btw, I searched Google and SO for terms like "Constructor not created in proxy class with Add Service Reference" with and without "ServiceStack", no results to aid me in this quest...
Pps. Demis (ServiceStack), if you're reading this, yes SOAP is on the way out, REST is the new black - but I want to support both, which it seems like ServiceStack does, which is really great. I love ServiceStack :D
try to instanciate your property by the time you are going to access it, I know that´s a workaround but it could be convenient in your scenario.
private TimestampDTO _timestamp;
public TimestampDTO Timestamp
{
get
{
if(_timestamp==null) _timestamp=new TimestampDTO();
return _timestamp;
}
set
{
_Timestamp=value;
}
}
This is my solution (for now):
I created a new service method in my service, where the client gets a new UserDTO complete with all fields. This way, the constructor is run on the server. I bet I have quite a performance hit this way, but it doesn't matter that much (now...).
Service DTO's:
[DataContract]
public class ReturnNewEmptyUser : IReturn<ReturnNewEmptyUserResponse> {}
[DataContract]
public class ReturnNewEmptyUserResponse
{
[DataMember]
public SyncUserDTO User { get; set; }
}
The Service:
public class SyncService : Service
{
public ReturnNewEmptyUserResponse Any(ReturnNewEmptyUser request)
{
var user = new ReturnNewEmptyUserResponse { User = new SyncUserDTO() };
return user;
}
}
On the client:
static void SendUsersServiceReference()
{
var webservice = new ServiceReference1.SyncReplyClient();
var users = new List<User>();
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
var userResponse = webservice.ReturnNewEmptyUser(new ReturnNewEmptyUser());
var user = userResponse.User;
user.Timestamp.Value = DateTime.Now;
user.Timestamp.DataValid = true;
// Continue with field population...
users.Add(user);
}
// Send users with webservice method
// ...
}
We're wondering if it is a bad way to expose the fields this way. It is nice, because the client can use autocomplete and know exactly the types used - but is it better to force the client to create an XML/JSON in a specific format.
This should be in another question - this question I guess has been answered: Add service reference/proxy classes does not contain methods (incl. constructors for types), only types. If you really need the constructor, have it run and then exposed on the server and then consume it from the client. Like a factory-thing, as Adam wrote here: Class constructor (from C# web service) won't auto-implement properties in C# MVC
Btw - is there any security issues with this design? User is logged in via url-credentials (should probably be header authentication), only a few systems has access to it.
A proxy class does not keep implementation details, like a constructor. It is just a DTO. This can only be done if you share the classes, through a shared project.
Think about that servicestack is just telling the client which properties it needs, and their type.. the implementation is up to the client.