I need to pass some arguments to a custom AbstractLifestyleManager derived type.
When I request an instance of a type from the container, I use the following overload:
T Resolve<T>(string key, object argumentsAsAnonymousType)
For example:
public IHttpController CreateController(HttpControllerContext controllerContext, string controllerName)
{
var controller = this.container.Resolve<IHttpController>(
controllerName,
new { requestProperties = controllerContext.Request.Properties });
// ...
}
Then, inside the custom AbstractLifestyleManager derived type, I can do this:
var messageProperties = (IDictionary<string, object>)
context.AdditionalArguments["requestProperties"];
Which returns the value that I have previsouly passed.
However, if I call base.Resolve(context, releasePolicy) the AdditionalArguments is null if the code enters the custom type recursively.
Is it possible to pass/flow the AdditionalArguments between the base.Resolve calls?
I am not quite sure how the flow is, when implementing a lifestyle manager, but it sounds like the problem that CreateContext AdditionalArguments aren't propagated to child context per default. See this other question.
If that is the case, you could try to change the default as described in the linked question by subclassing DefaultDependencyResolver.
Related
I'm building REST API on the top of Spring Data Rest. Initially all repositories where extending JpaRepository. Lately decision has been made to take a more flexible approach and use QueryDslPredicateExecutor<T> along with QuerydslBinderCustomizer<Q>.
Pretty much all findAll methods exposed in repositories should address two scenarios
principal has a role ROLE_ADMIN then no filtering should be applied a part from Pageable,Sort
principal does not have a role ROLE_ADMIN I would return only those entities which belong to the current user
Getting that done was as simple as annotating findAll method as below.
#Query("select e from Entity e where e.field = ?#{principal} or 1=?#{hasRole('ROLE_ADMIN') ? 1 : 0}")
Page<Entity> findAll(Pageable pageable);
Now I want our findAll to be something similar to below
Page<Entity> findAll(Predicate predicate, Pageable pageable)
Predicate is being build from request parameters(courtesy of #QuerydslPredicate) and is being passed in to RepositoryEntityController which is all being managed by spring-data-rest which is great.
#ResponseBody
#RequestMapping(value = BASE_MAPPING, method = RequestMethod.GET)
public Resources<?> getCollectionResource(#QuerydslPredicate RootResourceInformation resourceInformation,
DefaultedPageable pageable, Sort sort, PersistentEntityResourceAssembler assembler)
throws ResourceNotFoundException, HttpRequestMethodNotSupportedException {
I want to tweak that predicate(2 scenarios as above that I want to address).
It would be something simialr to below.
BooleanBuilder builder = new BooleanBuilder(predicateBuildFromHttpRequest);
builder.and(predicateAddressingOurRequirements);
builder.getValue();
#PostFilter won't be an option as return type for all repos is Page<Entity>.
Use case that I want to address seems to be quite common to me. Having said that I had a look at spring-data and spring-data-rest documentation and could not find anything related to my question.
Question is : Am I missing something obvious here and there is a quick win for it? or I would need to implement custom solution myself? Any comments very much appreciated!
The Querydsl predicates are constructed by QuerydslAwareRootResourceInformationHandlerMethodArgumentResolver which is sadly package private and can't be directly extended.
However, you can make a copy of that, add your security predicate logic and then drop in your implementation instead of the former resolver.
public class MyQueryDslRootResourceArgumentResolver extends RootResourceInformationHandlerMethodArgumentResolver {
// the most of the code is ommitted, the content is identical with
// QuerydslAwareRootResourceInformationHandlerMethodArgumentResolver,
// the important part is postProcessMethod where you can modify the predicate
#Override
#SuppressWarnings({"unchecked"})
protected RepositoryInvoker postProcess(MethodParameter parameter, RepositoryInvoker invoker,
Class<?> domainType, Map<String, String[]> parameters) {
Object repository = repositories.getRepositoryFor(domainType);
if (!QueryDslPredicateExecutor.class.isInstance(repository)
|| !parameter.hasParameterAnnotation(QuerydslPredicate.class)) {
return invoker;
}
ClassTypeInformation<?> type = ClassTypeInformation.from(domainType);
QuerydslBindings bindings = factory.createBindingsFor(null, type);
// modify your predicate here
Predicate predicate = predicateBuilder.getPredicate(type, toMultiValueMap(parameters), bindings);
return new QuerydslRepositoryInvokerAdapter(invoker, (QueryDslPredicateExecutor<Object>) repository, predicate);
}
}
Then add you own configuration class with the custom resolver implementation.
public class CustomRepositoryRestMvcConfiguration extends RepositoryRestMvcConfiguration {
#Autowired
ApplicationContext applicationContext;
#Override
public RootResourceInformationHandlerMethodArgumentResolver repoRequestArgumentResolver() {
QuerydslBindingsFactory factory = applicationContext.getBean(QuerydslBindingsFactory.class);
QuerydslPredicateBuilder predicateBuilder = new QuerydslPredicateBuilder(defaultConversionService(),
factory.getEntityPathResolver());
return new MyQueryDslRootResourceArgumentResolver(repositories(),
repositoryInvokerFactory(defaultConversionService()), resourceMetadataHandlerMethodArgumentResolver(),
predicateBuilder, factory);
}
}
Here is an example project that modifies the Predicate (that is produced by the parameters from url) before passing it to the repository.
The demonstration of what David Siro explained above
https://github.com/yeldarxman/QueryDslPredicateModifier
I'm attempting to implement Dependency Injection into my architecture (MVC, DDD - Domain Model, Repository). And my architecture includes ASP.NET Identity 2.0.
At this stage, I don't want DI controlling any of the Identity 2.0 objects (UserAdminController, RolesAdminController...). I'd prefer the security objects outside of DI. At this stage, integrating the Identity objects in DI looks very difficult. I had a good look to see if someone has already done this, so I could read and learn how to do this. I couldn't find anything. (Found one post which came close, but no resolution).
Anyway, I've followed the Simple Injector MVC implementation (see standard code below), and trying many things, I believe the problem lies in me calling RegisterMvcControllers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this statement will pickup all controllers with their name post-fixed with "controller".
Question: How can I select which controllers get registered with Simple Injector? (Is this called manually registering?)
Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I've spent most of today trying to get my head around all this, and proceed to the next step, i.e. have DI implemented, and instantiating my objects.
...
...
... called from Application_Start()
// Create a Simple Injector container
var container = new Container();
// Configure the container
InitializeContainer(container);
container.RegisterMvcControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
// Verify the container's configuration
container.Verify();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new SimpleInjectorDependencyResolver(container));
private static void InitializeContainer(Container container)
{
container.Register<MyService1>();
container.Register<IMyRepositoryA, MyRepositoryA>();
// Trying to include Identity into Simple Injector - please ignore
container.Register<IUserStore<ApplicationUser>>(() => new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(new ApplicationDbContext()));
}
The RegisterMvcControllers has the following constraints on the types it registers:
The type must be public
The type must implement System.Web.Mvc.IController
The type must not be abstract
The type must not be a generic type definition
Its name must end with "Controller"
You can see what happens here in the source code.
The RegisterMvcControllers extension method calls into the SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister method to get the list of controllers to register. You can call that method yourself to see what is registered as follows:
var registeredControllerTypes =
SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister(
container, Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
So instead of calling RegisterMvcControllers you can register the controllers yourself by calling the GetControllerTypesToRegister method:
var registeredControllerTypes =
SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister(
container, Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
foreach (var controllerType in registeredControllerTypes)
{
container.Register(controllerType, controllerType, Lifestyle.Transient);
}
This way you can filter out any controller you want to register manually:
var registeredControllerTypes =
SimpleInjectorMvcExtensions.GetControllerTypesToRegister(
container, Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly())
.Where(type => type.Name != "UserStore`1");
foreach (var controllerType in registeredControllerTypes)
{
container.Register(controllerType, controllerType, Lifestyle.Transient);
}
Another option is to override the registration:
container.RegisterMvcControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
container.Options.AllowOverridingRegistrations = true;
container.Register<IUserStore<ApplicationUser>>(
() => new UserStore<ApplicationUser>(new ApplicationDbContext()))
// Always set the option back to false ASAP to prevent configuration errors.
container.Options.AllowOverridingRegistrations = false;
I use tomcat 7.0 and JSF 2.1 and I have problem when I call in my .xhtml page something like that: #{homePage.get("userName")}
I get javax.el.ELException: Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
at mainPacket.HomePageBean.get(HomePageBean.java:35)
I have ManagedBean like below:
#ManagedBean(name = "homePage")
#ViewScoped
public class HomePageBean {
private Map<String, Object> map;
public HomePageBean() {
map= FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getSessionMap();
//remove unnecessary values from sessionMap
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance().getExternalContext().getSessionMap().clear();
}
public String get(Object s){
return map.get(s).toString();
}
}
When I don't use clear, everything works ok. But I want to clear sessionMap. How to resolve it ?
Thanks
Java is an object oriented language. It doesn't give you a copy of the object everytime you request it. No, it gives you a reference to the object instance in memory. At the moment you invoke Map#clear() on the session map, then the map reference which you obtained just beforehand is basically also emptied, because it points to exactly the same map instance which you just emptied!
Your concrete functional requirement is nowhere mentioned in the question and the whole design in the code posted so far makes honestly no utter sense (I can't imagine any sensible real world use case for this), so it's hard to propose you the right solution. Best what you can get is the advice to add a nullcheck.
public String get(Object s){
Object value = map.get(s);
return (value != null) ? value.toString() : null;
}
You should by the way be very careful with abruptly emptying the session map this way. JSF stores view scoped and session scoped managed beans in there and it's also used by the flash scope.
Is there a way to use Property Injection in Ninject 2 without using the [Inject] attribute? This creates a dependency to Ninject in the class that will be wired using it and I prefer to avoid having unneeded dependencies to my IoC container, that's why I end up using Constructor Injection more often.
I guess the same applies to Method Injection
I followed Ruben's tip and posted a small blog post on how to achieve this, but here's the quick answer:
Create a custom attribute:
public class InjectHereAttribute : Attribute
{
}
The target class will now look like this:
public class Samurai
{
[InjectHere]
public IWeapon Context { get; set; }
}
Now Ninject must be configured to use the custom attribute, this can be done by creating an implementation of IInjectionHeuristic that recognizes the custom attribute:
public class CustomInjectionHeuristic : NinjectComponent, IInjectionHeuristic, INinjectComponent, IDisposable
{
public new bool ShouldInject(MemberInfo member)
{
return member.IsDefined(
typeof(InjectHereAttribute),
true);
}
}
And finally add this behavior to the Ninject Kernel using the Components collection, it will run along the existing components, namely the default implementation of IInjectionHeuristic, which means either the default or the custom attribute can be used.
// Add custom inject heuristic
kernel.Components.Add<IInjectionHeuristic, CustomInjectionHeuristic>();
You can pass in another [attribute] type to the Kernel upon creation which can be used instead of InjectAttribute, but you'll still have to reference something centrally OOTB.
There was a similar question very recently about doing PI without attributes - there's no OOTB (as in directly on the fluent configuration interface) to put in a custom scanner but the extensibility points (you add a component that implements a Ninject interface as you build your Kernel that dictates how that aspect is to be work if looking for a given attribute isnt't what you want) are in there to determine where to inject based on Convention over Configuration - there's nothing stopping you amending the scanning to be based on just an attribute name (so it doesnt necessarily have to live in a central location).
Note that, in general, constructor injection is good for lots of reasons anyway, including this one, and keeping you code container agnostic is important (even if you're currently happy with one!)
I was able to accomplish this using a Heuristic class:
public sealed class MyInjectionHeuristic : NinjectComponent, IInjectionHeuristic
{
private static readonly IList<Type>
_propertyInjectible =
new List<Type>
{
typeof(IMyService),
};
/// <summary>
/// Returns a value indicating whether the specified member should be injected.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="member">The member in question.</param>
/// <returns><c>True</c> if the member should be injected; otherwise <c>false</c>.</returns>
public bool ShouldInject(MemberInfo member)
{
var info = member as PropertyInfo;
if( member == null || info == null )
return false;
if (info.CanWrite)
return _propertyInjectible.Contains(info.PropertyType);
if( this.Settings == null )
return false;
var propList = member.GetCustomAttributes(this.Settings.InjectAttribute, true);
return propList.Length > 0;
}
}
When creating your kernel:
var heuristics = _kernel.Components.Get<ISelector>().InjectionHeuristics;
heuristics.Add(new MyInjectionHeuristic());
Simple add additional types to the IList when you want to inject other types via properties.
I'm new to MSpec and would like to know if the way I wrote my test for ASP.NET MVC is correct. The test passes but I don't really like the way it's written and it seems awkward. I'm certainly missing something.
public class AccountControllerTests3
{
protected static AccountController controller;
static IFormsAuthenticationService formsService;
static IMembershipService membershipService;
protected static ActionResult result;
protected static LogOnModel model;
Establish context = () =>
{
var controllerBuilder = new TestControllerBuilder();
formsService = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IFormsAuthenticationService>();
membershipService = MockRepository.GenerateStub<IMembershipService>();
model = MockRepository.GenerateStub<LogOnModel>();
controller =
controllerBuilder.CreateController<AccountController>(new object[]
{
formsService,
membershipService
});
};
Because user_logs = () =>
{
bool rememberMe = false;
membershipService.Stub(
x => x.ValidateUser("bdd", "mspec")).Return(true);
formsService.Stub(x => x.SignIn("bdd", rememberMe));
controller.ModelState.IsValid.ShouldBeTrue();
};
}
[Subject(typeof(AccountController), "LogInTests")]
public class When_logging_into_application_with_good_login_and_password : AccountControllerTests3
{
private It user_should_be_redirected_to_the_home_page = () =>
{
model.UserName = "bdd";
model.Password = "mspec";
result = controller.LogOn(model, string.Empty);
result.AssertActionRedirect().ToAction<HomeController>(
x => x.Index());
};
}
[Subject(typeof(AccountController), "LogInTests")]
public class When_logging_into_application_with_bad_login_and_password : AccountControllerTests3
{
It The_error_message_should_be_shown = () =>
{
model.UserName = "BAD";
model.Password = "BAD";
result = controller.LogOn(model, string.Empty);
controller.ModelState[""].Errors[0].ErrorMessage.ShouldEqual(
"The user name or password provided is incorrect.");
};
}
Thanks in advance,
Thomas
One of my goals when I write tests with MSpec is to get the "Assert" or the "It" down to one line. MSpec is not like NUnit in that it only executes the Context (made up of the Establish clauses from the current class and all base classes and the Because clause) once followed by all of the Specifications (It clauses).
This is designed explicitly to force you to not perform any behavior in the It clauses, but rather observe it.
What you're actually doing here is using MSpec like NUnit. Try and rewrite the tests in a single class (using no inheritance). Work backwards... in the It, place a single line that asserts what you want to assert. Perhaps the AssertRedirect. In the Because, try and put a single line that causes the observations to be observable. This would probably be your call to the controller's logon method. Finally, in the "Establish context" you'd want to put everything else.
After a while, you may want to pull some of the things in the Establish context only into a base class, but in doing so, be sure that your entire subclass stands alone in terms of understanding. A reader shouldn't need to read the base class in order to understand what the actual spec is doing. It's ok to hide ceremonial implementation details, but be sure to hide them behind descriptive method names.
There's another line I'm not sure about:
controller.ModelState.IsValid.ShouldBeTrue();
If this is a test, it should probably be in its own It clause. Though really, do you want to test this? What are you testing here? Shouldn't your controller take an action based on whether or not the model is valid? Shouldn't the result of that action be observable (validation error instead of login error). I just wonder if you really need to test this.
A few other things to check out, first for styling with R#, it seems your tests are falling victim to R#'s defaults. I posted about how to fight this here:
http://codebetter.com/blogs/aaron.jensen/archive/2008/10/19/getting-resharper-and-vs-to-play-nice-with-mspec.aspx
Also, James Broome has some nice MVC MSpec extensions that are worth checking out:
http://jamesbroo.me/introducing-machinespecificationsmvc/
Good luck and Enjoy! Feel free to ping me on twitter if you have any other unrelated questions.
Here's a remark: instead of using CreateController method use InitializeController, because it is compile-time safer and refactor friendlier.
Instead of:
controller = controllerBuilder.CreateController<AccountController>(
new object[] { formsService, membershipService });
Do:
controller = new AccountController(formsService, membershipService);
controllerBuilder.InitializeController(controller);
The first will still compile if you change the controller constructor arguments and it will blow at runtime, while the second will generate a compile-time error.