Here is my story :
I'm working on a not so large WPF / C# application implementing (for the first time) inversion of control with the help of Unity Framework. It is mostly finished. My problem come from my "bootstrapper" class, in wich I register my types in the Unity container. With the important number of classes involved, my bootstrapper turned to be much more longer than I'd like and despite the comments/regions, to maintain it would be a pain for anyone else than me. So I was wondering if there was a better way to handle registeration. I was thinking, that maybe :
1. "What are you complaining of ? Every one does it this way" Mmmh, I doubt it
2. I have misunderstood the interest of ioc and too much of my classes need registeration. Well, what would be the interest of ioc ?
3. I simply created a ravioli app with too much different classes, I should merge some I think I did my best to find a balance
4.I should not have one macro bootstrapper, but the main one should call specialized ones, one by librairy for example okay, that begins to sound good. After all, the librairies themselves should know better than others what they contain. But I absolutely don't know how to handle it without having my container tramping in every libraries, these having a dependency over Unity...
So, is one of this points good, or did I just miss the post about the nice way to handle registeration, with comfort of maintainability, that anyone use ?
PS : I did not mentioned the technos in tags, because the question seemed to be pretty common to every app working with an ioc container
Edit : Code Added for the bootstrepper (misnamed bootloader)
It's an old version, it has grow longer by now, something like +15-20%
class Bootloader
{
public void Run()
{
#region SPLASH SCREEN
Sequenceur.IHM.Views.SplashScreen screen = new Sequenceur.IHM.Views.SplashScreen();
SplashScreenViewModel screenVM = new SplashScreenViewModel();
screen.Show();
#endregion
#region CONTAINER INITIALIZATION
UnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IMainWorker, Overseer>();
#endregion
#region DAL REGISTERATION
container.RegisterType<IManageData<Product>, LazyProductFilesManager>();
container.RegisterType<IManageData<Program>, LazyProgramFilesManager>();
container.RegisterType<IManageData<SequenceResult>, LazyResultFilesManager>();
#endregion
#region BOL REGISTERATION
//Sequence preparation
container.RegisterType<IProvideProducts, EagerCancellableProductProvider>();
container.RegisterType<IProvidePrograms, EagerCancellableProgramProvider>();
container.RegisterType<IPrepareSequence, SequenceInitializer>();
//Sequence processing
container.RegisterType<IManagePlugins, MefPluginManager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
//Result Persistence
container.RegisterType<IPersistSequenceResult, SequenceResultPersister>();
container.RegisterType<IManageReport, Reporter>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
#endregion
#region UPDATE REGISTERATION
container.RegisterType<IManageConnection, SqlConnectionManager>();
container.RegisterType<IUpdateProducts, ProductsUpdater>();
container.RegisterType<IUpdatePrograms, ProgramsUpdater>();
container.RegisterType<IUploadResults, ResultsUploader>();
container.RegisterType<IUpdate, DevelopmentUpdater>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
#endregion
#region HELPERS REGISTERATION
//Hashing
container.RegisterType<IHashString, Sha256StringHasher>();
//Configuration
container.RegisterType<IPersistConfiguration, ConfigurationPropertiesPersister>();
container.RegisterType<IConfiguration, EditableConfiguration>();
//Logging
container.RegisterType<IManageLoggers, NLoggerManager>();
//Messengers
container.RegisterType<IMessagePublisher<Exception>, SimpleMessenger<Exception>>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IMessagePublisher<AbortRequest>, SimpleMessenger<AbortRequest>>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IMessagePublisher<ConfigData>, SimpleMessenger<ConfigData>>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IMessagePublisher<SequenceAction>, SimpleMessenger<SequenceAction>>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IMessagePublisher<UpdaterStatus>, SimpleMessenger<UpdaterStatus>>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IMessageListener<AbortRequest>>();
#endregion
#region IHM REGISTERATION
container.RegisterType<ILoadMenuViews, SimpleMenuViewLoader>();
container.RegisterType<IManageScene, SceneManager>();
container.RegisterType<IProvideOD, WinFormOFDialog>();
#endregion
#region CONVERTERS REGISTERATION
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Parameter, dbParameterResult>, ParameterModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<SequenceActionResult, dbActionResult>, ActionModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Tag, dbTag>, TagModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Country, dbCountry>, CountryModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Segment, dbSegment>, SegmentModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Caracteristic, dbCaracteristic>, CaracteristicModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Value, dbValue>, ValueModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Range, dbRange>, RangeModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Subrange, dbSubrange>, SubrangeModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Product, dbProduct>, ProductModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Program, dbProgram>, ProgramModelsConverter>();
container.RegisterType<IConvertModels<Tag, dbTag>, TagModelsConverter>();
#endregion
#region START
ShellView mainView = new ShellView();
mainView.DataContext = container.Resolve<ShellViewModel>();
screen.Close();
mainView.Show();
#endregion
}
}
The famous Mark Seemann has written a blog post explaining when to use a DI container. What he basically says is that the usefulness of a DI container is limited when only use 'Explicit Register', having a line of code per registered type in the container (which is what you are doing). The real benefit starts when you use a Convention over Configuration. With convention over configuration you will be able to register a large amount of types in a single line of code, and you prevent your composition root from becoming this maintenance nightmare.
Although I'm not exactly on the same page and see some use for the 'Explicit Register' model, he is right that you gain the most benefit from using convention over configuration. In your application there are already a few clear spots where you would benefit from convention over configuration and that's when registering your generic abstractions such as IManageData<T>, IConvertModels and IMessagePublisher<TMessage>.
So what you can do is create the following convenient extension method:
public static void RegisterManyForOpenGeneric(this UnityContainer container,
Type openGenericServiceType, params Assembly[] assemblies)
{
container.RegisterTypes(
from type in AllClasses.FromAssemblies(assemblies)
where type.GetInterfaces().Any(i => i.IsGenericType &&
i.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == openGenericServiceType)
select type,
WithMappings.FromMatchingInterface,
WithName.Default);
}
With this extension method you can reduce the registrations of your generic abstractions to the following:
var assemblies = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.GetAssemblies();
container.RegisterManyForOpenGeneric(typeof(IManageData<>), assemblies);
container.RegisterManyForOpenGeneric(typeof(IConvertModels<,>), assemblies);
container.RegisterManyForOpenGeneric(typeof(IMessagePublisher<>), assemblies);
Related
I have a ASP.Net MVC project running on .NET 4.6.1 Framework.
I have recently added Unity.Mvc 5 IoC framework for dependency injection
In order to have flexibility for unit testing and other, I moved my Unity Configuration to a separate class library so that I can call the Unity Register methods from Unit test projects and other as needed.
Here is my high-level solution design.
I would like to use the same class library to implement application cache.
When I installed Unity.Mvc5 from nuget package it added following references (I added some of them manually) :
Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.Caching 5.0.505.0
Enterprise Library Shared Library 5.0.505.0
Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation 1.3.0.0
Microsoft.Practices.Unity 4.0.0.0
Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration 4.0.0.0
Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Interception 2.1.505.0
Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Interception.Configuration 2.1.505.0
Microsoft.Practices.Unity.RegistrationByConvention 4.0.0.0
I tried few articles to implement Application Block Cache Management so that I can cache data in my Service Implementer layers, but all those documentations are showing code examples which is expecting Unity 2.xxx version.
Here is my Unity Configuration
public static class UnityConfig
{
public static void RegisterComponents()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<UserManager<User>>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IUserStore<User>, UserStore<User>>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<DbContext, OfficeGxDbContext>(new HierarchicalLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IAppSetting, AppSettingService>();
container.RegisterType<ISubscription, SubscriptionService>();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new UnityDependencyResolver(container));
}
}
In my AppSettingService.cs I have get all method
public List<AppSetting> All()
{
using (var context = new MyDbContext())
{
//CachecKeyItem.AppSettingsAll
return context.AppSettings.Where(x => !x.IsDeleted)
.Include(x => x.Module).ToList();
}
}
I want to store this data in cache and reuse it. Similarly do this across all projects I have in my solution and if there is any update or add or delete for any DB records, I want the cached object to refresh it so that cached object is always in sync with DB data
I ended up doing something like this
public interface ICacheService
{
T GetOrSet<T>(string cacheKey, Func<T> getItemCallback) where T : class;
}
Service Implementor
public class InMemoryCache : ICacheService
{
public T GetOrSet<T>(string cacheKey, Func<T> getItemCallback) where T : class
{
if (MemoryCache.Default.Get(cacheKey) is T item) return item;
item = getItemCallback();
MemoryCache.Default.Add(cacheKey, item, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(8));
return item;
}
}
use like this
_cacheService.GetOrSet(CachecKeyItem.AppSettingsAll, () => context.AppSettings
.Where(x => !x.IsDeleted)
.Include(x => x.Module).ToList());
Now my question is, when there is any change to data, like add/edit/delete, how do I refresh the cache in most efficient way? I know deleting the key would be one, is there a better way?
It slightly depends on if your running in a single server system or multi server system. Its generally better to always design for multi-server that way if you ever decide to scale out your already sorted.
So assuming you can get a message to fire off when your cache invalidates to all the servers without issue then the easiest way is to delete your cache key... now that also brings a few areas of optimization that can be looked at.
Is this cached data utilized heavily, in which case may you benefit from a pre-fetch cache where you either send the updated cached entry to all servers or require all servers to ask for it? Is it used very little in which case you don't really want to re-populate until its requested otherwise your needlessly bloating your application.
We're trying to use MEF 2 with ASP.NET MVC 4 to support an extensible application. There are really 2 parts to this question (hope that's okay SO gods):
How do we use Microsoft.Composition and the MVC container code (MEF/MVC demo source) to replace Ninject as our DI for ICoreService, ICoreRepository, IUnitOfWork, and IDbContext?
It looks like we can't use both Ninject and the MVC container at the same time (I'm sure many are saying "duh"), so we'd like to go with MEF, if possible. I tried removing Ninject and setting [Export] attributes on each of the relevant implementations, spanning two assemblies in addition to the web project, but Save() failed to persist with no errors. I interpreted that as a singleton issue, but could not figure out how to sort it out (incl. [Shared]).
How do we load multiple assemblies dynamically at runtime?
I understand how to use CompositionContainer.AddAssemblies() to load specific DLLs, but for our application to be properly extensible, we require something more akin to how I (vaguely) understand catalogs in "full" MEF, which have been stripped out from the Microsoft.Composition package (I think?); to allow us to load all IPluggable (or whatever) assemblies, which will include their own UI, service, and repository layers and tie in to the Core service/repo too.
EDIT 1
A little more reading solved the first problem which was, indeed, a singleton issue. Attaching [Shared(Boundaries.HttpRequest)] to the CoreDbContext solved the persistence problem. When I tried simply [Shared], it expanded the 'singletonization' to the Application level (cross-request) and threw an exception saying that the edited object was already in the EF cache.
EDIT 2
I used the iterative assembly loading "meat" from Nick Blumhardt's answer below to update my Global.asax.cs code. The standard MEF 2 container from his code did not work in mine, probably because I'm using the MEF 2(?) MVC container. Summary: the code listed below now works as desired.
CoreDbContext.cs (Data.csproj)
[Export(typeof(IDbContext))]
[Shared(Boundaries.HttpRequest)]
public class CoreDbContext : IDbContext { ... }
CoreRepository.cs (Data.csproj)
[Export(typeof(IUnitOfWork))]
[Export(typeof(ICoreRepository))]
public class CoreRepository : ICoreRepository, IUnitOfWork
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public CoreRepository(IInsightDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
...
}
CoreService.cs (Services.csproj)
[Export(typeof(ICoreService))]
public class CoreService : ICoreService
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public CoreService(ICoreRepository repository, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_repository = repository;
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
...
}
UserController.cs (Web.csproj)
public class UsersController : Controller
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public UsersController(ICoreService service)
{
_service = service;
}
...
}
Global.asax.cs (Web.csproj)
public class MvcApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication
{
protected void Application_Start()
{
CompositionProvider.AddAssemblies(
typeof(ICoreRepository).Assembly,
typeof(ICoreService).Assembly,
);
// EDIT 2 --
// updated code to answer my 2nd question based on Nick Blumhardt's answer
foreach (var file in System.IO.Directory.GetFiles(Server.MapPath("Plugins"), "*.dll"))
{
try
{
var name = System.Reflection.AssemblyName.GetAssemblyName(file);
var assembly = System.Reflection.Assembly.Load(name);
CompositionProvider.AddAssembly(assembly);
}
catch
{
// You'll need to craft exception handling to
// your specific scenario.
}
}
}
}
If I understand you correctly, you're looking for code that will load all assemblies from a directory and load them into the container; here's a skeleton for doing that:
var config = new ContainerConfiguration();
foreach (var file in Directory.GetFiles(#".\Plugins", "*.dll"))
{
try
{
var name = AssemblyName.GetAssemblyName(file);
var assembly = Assembly.Load(name);
config.WithAssembly(assembly);
}
catch
{
// You'll need to craft exception handling to
// your specific scenario.
}
}
var container = config.CreateContainer();
// ...
Hammett discusses this scenario and shows a more complete version in F# here: http://hammett.castleproject.org/index.php/2011/12/a-decent-directorycatalog-implementation/
Note, this won't detect assemblies added to the directory after the application launches - Microsoft.Composition isn't intended for that kind of use, so if the set of plug-ins changes your best bet is to detect that with a directory watcher and prompt the user to restart the app. HTH!
MEF is not intended to be used as DI framework. Which means that you should separate your "plugins" (whatever they are) composition from your infrastructure dependencies, and implement the former via MEF and the latter via whatever DI framework you prefer.
I think there are a little misunderstandings on what MEF can and can't do.
Originally MEF was conceived as purely an extensibility architecture, but as the framework evolved up to its first release, it can be fully supported as a DI container also. MEF will handle dependency injection for you, and does so through it's ExportProvider architecture. It is also entirely possible to use other DI frameworks with MEF. So in reality there are a number of ways things could be achieved:
Build a NinjectExportProvider that you can plug into MEF, so when MEF is searching for available exports, it will be able to interrogate your Ninject container.
Use an implementation of the Common Services Locator pattern to bridge between MEF and Ninject or vice versa.
Because you are using MEF for the extensibility, you'll probably want to use the former, as this exposes your Ninject components to MEF, which in turn exposes them to your plugins.
The other thing to consider, which is a bit disappointing, is in reality there isn't a lot of room for automagically plugging in of features ala Wordpress on ASP.NET. ASP.NET is a compiled and managed environment, and because of that you either resort to late-binding by loading assemblies manually at runtime, or you restart the application to pick up the new plugins, which sort of defeats the object of being able to plug new extensions in through the application.
My advice, is plan your architecture to pick up any extensibility points as startup and assume that any core changes will require a deployment and application restart.
In terms of the direct questions asked:
The CompositionProvider accepts in instance of ContainerConfiguration which is used internally to create the CompositionContainer used by the provider. So you could use this as the point by which you customise how you want your container to be instantiated. The ContainerConfiguration supports a WithProvider method:
var configuration = new ContainerConfiguration().WithProvider(new NinjectExportDescriptorProvider(kernel));
CompositionProvider.SetConfiguration(configuration);
Where NinjectExportDescriptorProvider might be:
public class NinjectExportDescriptorProvider: ExportDescriptorProvider
{
private readonly IKernel _kernel;
public NinjectExportDescriptorProvider(IKernel kernel)
{
if (kernel == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("kernel");
_kernel = kernel;
}
public override IEnumerable<ExportDescriptorPromise> GetExportDescriptors(
CompositionContract contract, DependencyAccessor dependencyAccessor)
{
var type = contract.ContractType;
if (!_kernel.GetBindings(type).Any())
return NoExportDescriptors;
return new[] {
new ExportDescriptorPromise(
contract,
"Ninject Kernel",
true, // Hmmm... need to consider this, setting it to true will create it as a shared part, false as new instance each time,
NoDependencies,
_ => ExportDescriptor.Create((c, o) => _kernel.Get(type), NoMetadata)) };
}
}
}
Note: I have not tested this, this is all theory, and is based on the example AppSettingsExportDescriptorProvider at: http://mef.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=ProgrammingModelExtensions
It's different from using the standard ExportProvider, because using the CompostionProvider is built around lightweight composition. But essentially you're wrapping up access to your Ninject kernel and making it available to your CompositionContainer.
As with adding a specific new provider (see above), you can use the ContainerConfiguration to read the available assemblies, probably something like:
var configuration = new ContainerConfiguration().WithAssemblies(AppDomain.GetAssemblies())
Again, I haven't tested all of this, but I hope it at least points you in the right direction.
Let's say we have class:
public class WithDependencies
{
public WithDependencies(IAmDependencyOne first, IAmDependencyTwo second)
// ...
}
Now the question. How do you create objects of WithDependencies class in an application?
I know there are many ways.
new WithDependencies(new DependencyOne(), new DependencyTwo());
new WithDependencies(IoC.Resolve(IDependencyOne), IoC.Resolve(IDependencyTwo());
// register IDependencyOne, IDependencyTwo implementations at app start
IoC.Resolve(WithDependencies);
// register IDependencyOne, IDependencyTwo implementations at app start
// isolate ourselves from concrete IoC Container
MyCustomWithDependenciesFactory.Create();
and so on...
What do you think is the way to do it?
Edit:
Because I don't get answers or I don't understand them I'll try to ask again. Let's say that on some event (button, timer, whatever) I need new object WithDependencies(). How do I create it? Assume IoC container is already configured.
It depends on the context, so it's impossible to provide a single answer. Conceptually you'd be doing something like this from the Composition Root:
var wd = new WithDependencies(new DependencyOne(), new DependencyTwo());
However, even in the absence of a DI Container, the above code isn't always unambiguously the correct answer. In some cases, you might want to share the same dependency among several consumers, like this:
var dep1 = new DependencyOne();
var wd = new WithDependencies(dep1, new DependencyTwo());
var another = AnotherWithDependencies(dep1, new DependencyThree());
In other cases, you might not want to share dependencies, in which case the first option is more correct.
This is just a small glimpse of an entire dimension of DI concerned with Lifetime Management. Many DI Containers can take care of that for you, which is one excellent argument to prefer a DI Container over Poor Man's DI.
Once you start using a DI Container, you should follow the Register Resolve Release pattern when resolving types, letting Auto-wiring take care of the actual composition:
var wd = container.Resolve<WithDependencies>();
The above example assumes that the container is already correctly configured.
If you need to create a dependency which has its own dependencies, you can either A) do it yourself, or B) ask something else to do it for you. Option A negates the benefits of dependency injection (decoupling, etc.), so I would say option B is a better starting point. Now, we have chosen to use the factory pattern, no matter whether it takes the form of a service locator (i.e. IoC.Resolve), a static factory, or an instance factory. The point is that we have delegated that responsibility to an external authority.
There are a number of trade-offs required for static accessors. (I went over them in another answer, so I won't repeat them here.) In order to avoid introducing a dependency on the infrastructure or the container, a solid option is to accept a factory for creating WithDependencies when we need an instance somewhere else:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly IWithDependenciesFactory _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(IWithDependenciesFactory withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory.Create();
...Use the instance...
}
}
Next, we can create a container-specific implementation of the factory:
public class WithDependenciesFactory : IWithDependenciesFactory
{
private readonly IContainer _container;
public WithDependenciesFactory(IContainer container)
{
_container = container
}
public WithDependencies Create()
{
return _container.Resolve<WithDependencies>();
}
}
Now NeedsWithDependencies is completely isolated from any knowledge of how WithDependencies gets created; it also exposes all its dependencies in its constructor, instead of hiding dependencies on static accessors, making it easy to reuse and test.
Defining all those factories can get a little cumbersome, though. I like Autofac's factory relationship type, which will detect parameters of the form Func<TDependency> and automatically inject a function which serves the same purpose as the hand-coded factory above:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly Func<WithDependencies> _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(Func<WithDependencies> withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo()
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory();
...Use the instance...
}
}
It also works great with runtime parameters:
public class NeedsWithDependencies
{
private readonly Func<int, WithDependencies> _withDependenciesFactory;
public NeedsWithDependencies(Func<int, WithDependencies> withDependenciesFactory)
{
_withDependenciesFactory = withDependenciesFactory;
}
public void Foo(int x)
{
var withDependencies = _withDependenciesFactory(x);
...Use the instance...
}
}
Sometimes I try to get rid of factories or at least not depend directly on them, so Dependency Injection (without factories) is useful of course.
Therefore I use Google Juice, cause its a small little framework using Java Annotations and you can quickly change your injections / dependencies. Just take a look at it:
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/
I have been doing my first Test Driven Development project recently and have been learning Ninject and MOQ. This is my first attempt at all this. I've found the TDD approach has been thought provoking, and Ninject and MOQ have been great. The project I am working on has not particularly been the best fit for Ninject as it is a highly configurable C# program that is designed to test the use of a web service interface.
I have broken it up into modules and have interfaces all over the shop, but I am still finding that I am having to use lots of constructor arguments when getting an implementation of a service from the Ninject kernel. For example;
In my Ninject module;
Bind<IDirEnum>().To<DirEnum>()
My DirEnum class;
public class DirEnum : IDirEnum
{
public DirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs)
{
....
In my Configurator class (this is the main entry point) that hooks all the services together;
class Configurator
{
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
ArgParser argParser = new ArgParser(args);
IDirEnum dirEnum = kernel.Get<IDirEnum>(
new ConstructorArgument("filePath", argParser.filePath),
new ConstructorArgument("fileFilter", argParser.fileFilter),
new ConstructorArgument("includeSubDirs", argParser.subDirs)
);
filePath, fileFilter and includeSubDirs are command line options to the program. So far so good. However, being a conscientious kind of guy, I have a test covering this bit of code. I'd like to use a MOQ object. I have created a Ninject module for my tests;
public class TestNinjectModule : NinjectModule
{
internal IDirEnum mockDirEnum {set;get};
Bind<IDirEnum>().ToConstant(mockDirEnum);
}
And in my test I use it like this;
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
// Arrange
TestNinjectModule testmodule = new TestNinjectModule();
Mock<IDirEnum> mockDirEnum = new Mock<IDirEnum>();
testModule.mockDirEnum = mockDirEnum;
// Act
Configurator configurator = new Configurator();
configurator.ConfigureServices();
// Assert
here lies my problem! How do I test what values were passed to the
constructor arguments???
So the above shows my problem. How can I test what arguments were passed to the ConstructorArguments of the mock object? My guess is that Ninject is dispensing of the ConstuctorArguments in this case as the Bind does not require them? Can I test this with a MOQ object or do I need to hand code a mock object that implements DirEnum and accepts and 'records' the constructor arguments?
n.b. this code is 'example' code, i.e. I have not reproduced my code verbatim, but I think I have expressed enough to hopefully convey the issues? If you need more context, please ask!
Thanks for looking. Be gentle, this is my first time ;-)
Jim
There are a few problems with the way you designed your application. First of all, you are calling the Ninject kernel directly from within your code. This is called the Service Locator pattern and it is considered an anti-pattern. It makes testing your application much harder and you are already experiencing this. You are trying to mock the Ninject container in your unit test, which complicates things tremendously.
Next, you are injecting primitive types (string, bool) in the constructor of your DirEnum type. I like how MNrydengren states it in the comments:
take "compile-time" dependencies
through constructor parameters and
"run-time" dependencies through method
parameters
It's hard for me to guess what that class should do, but since you are injecting these variables that change at run-time into the DirEnum constructor, you end up with a hard to test application.
There are multiple ways to fix this. Two that come in mind are the use of method injection and the use of a factory. Which one is feasible is up to you.
Using method injection, your Configurator class will look like this:
class Configurator
{
private readonly IDirEnum dirEnum;
// Injecting IDirEnum through the constructor
public Configurator(IDirEnum dirEnum)
{
this.dirEnum = dirEnum;
}
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
var parser = new ArgParser(args);
// Inject the arguments into a method
this.dirEnum.SomeOperation(
argParser.filePath
argParser.fileFilter
argParser.subDirs);
}
}
Using a factory, you would need to define a factory that knows how to create new IDirEnum types:
interface IDirEnumFactory
{
IDirEnum CreateDirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs);
}
Your Configuration class can now depend on the IDirEnumFactory interface:
class Configurator
{
private readonly IDirEnumFactory dirFactory;
// Injecting the factory through the constructor
public Configurator(IDirEnumFactory dirFactory)
{
this.dirFactory = dirFactory;
}
public ConfigureServices(string[] args)
{
var parser = new ArgParser(args);
// Creating a new IDirEnum using the factory
var dirEnum = this.dirFactory.CreateDirEnum(
parser.filePath
parser.fileFilter
parser.subDirs);
}
}
See how in both examples the dependencies get injected into the Configurator class. This is called the Dependency Injection pattern, opposed to the Service Locator pattern, where the Configurator asks for its dependencies by calling into the Ninject kernel.
Now, since your Configurator is completely free from any IoC container what so ever, you can now easily test this class, by injecting a mocked version of the dependency it expects.
What is left is to configure the Ninject container in the top of your application (in DI terminology: the composition root). With the method injection example, your container configuration would stay the same, with the factory example, you will need to replace the Bind<IDirEnum>().To<DirEnum>() line with something as follows:
public static void Bootstrap()
{
kernel.Bind<IDirEnumFactory>().To<DirEnumFactory>();
}
Of course, you will need to create the DirEnumFactory:
class DirEnumFactory : IDirEnumFactory
{
IDirEnum CreateDirEnum(string filePath, string fileFilter,
bool includeSubDirs)
{
return new DirEnum(filePath, fileFilter, includeSubDirs);
}
}
WARNING: Do note that factory abstractions are in most cases not the best design, as explained here.
The last thing you need to do is to create a new Configurator instance. You can simply do this as follows:
public static Configurator CreateConfigurator()
{
return kernel.Get<Configurator>();
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Bootstrap():
var configurator = CreateConfigurator();
configurator.ConfigureServices(args);
}
Here we call the kernel. Although calling the container directly should be prevented, there will always at least be one place in your application where you call the container, simply because it must wire everything up. However, we try to minimize the number of times the container is called directly, because it improves -among other things- the testability of our code.
See how I didn't really answer your question, but showed a way to work around the problem very effectively.
You might still want to test your DI configuration. That's very valid IMO. I do this in my applications. But for this, you often don't need the DI container, or even if your do, this doesn't mean that all your tests should have a dependency on the container. This relationship should only exist for the tests that test the DI configuration itself. Here is a test:
[TestMethod]
public void DependencyConfiguration_IsConfiguredCorrectly()
{
// Arrange
Program.Bootstrap();
// Act
var configurator = Program.CreateConfigurator();
// Assert
Assert.IsNotNull(configurator);
}
This test indirectly depends on Ninject and it will fail when Ninject is not able to construct a new Configurator instance. When you keep your constructors clean from any logic and only use it for storing the taken dependencies in private fields, you can run this, without the risk of calling out to a database, web service or what so ever.
I hope this helps.
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.