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.
Related
I am trying to find out how I can pass the StructrueMap container to a class that I wrote that inherits from another (MS-Class).
namespace TheNamespace
{
public class DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry : ValidatingIssuerNameRegistry
{
/* **This can't be done**
public DatabaseIssuerNameRegistry(IPortalTenantManager portalTenantManager)
{
_someField= portalTenantManager;
}*/
protected override bool IsThumbprintValid(string thumbprint, string issuer)
{
//How does it work ???????????
var portalTenantManager = container.GetInstance<IPortalTenantManager>();
//Do something with the portalTenantManager
}
}
I need portalTenantManager to be the Instance that I have defined in my container in the Global.asax.
My Global Assax has these things setup:
protected void Application_Start()
{
var container = new Container();
container.Configure(x =>
{ ....
....
x.For<IPortalTenantManager>().Use<PortalTenantManager>();
});
...
...
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(new StructureMapControllerFactory(container));
...
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new StructureMapApiControllerFactory(container);
...
}
Edit:
Because of the comments of #NightOwl888 I'll explain a bit further what this class does. (Hopefully explaining so why my hands are tied)
My application is able to authenticate a user with Azure Active Directory and is Multi-tenant capable. In the authentication pipeline I have the possibility to store the validation endpoints in my database instead of the default way on the web.config file. See MSDN
and this, which actually is explaining exactly what I'm doing.
So I registered my class in the web.config under the Tag issuerNameRegistry. At some point of the validation pipeline my class is instantiated and the overriden method IsThumbprintValid is beeing called. The problem is that the class registered in issuerNameRegistry expects a parameterless constructor (there it is! the constrained construction!), therefore I cannot create a constructor that would solve my problem.
Thanks for your help
It turns out that this question has been asked before on MSDN, the answer of which was provided by Travis Spencer in 2 different posts.
it is typical in my experience to have a single container and use that service- or Web-side-wide. In the startup of the service or Web app, you can create the container, register the dependencies, new up an instance of your SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class, resolve your dependencies, use it to punch out a SecurityTokenService object, and host it.
After the first beta, we really pushed for DI support. We got a little hook in beta 2. You can now create a custom SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class that overrides the virtual CreateSecurityTokenService method. The implementation in Microsoft's SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration does Activator.CreateInstance; yours can do IoC. This can include the resolution of an IssuerNameRegistiry. Something like this perhaps:
RequestSecurityTokenResponse Issue(IClaimsPrincipal principal, RequestSecurityToken request)
{
SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration config = new MyGoodSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration();
SecurityTokenService sts = config.CreateSecurityTokenService();
RequestSecurityTokenResponse rstr = sts.Issue(principal, request);
return rstr;
}
public class MyGoodSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration : SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration
{
public override SecurityTokenService CreateSecurityTokenService()
{
IssuerNameRegistry = IoC.Resolve<IssuerNameRegistry>();
var sts = IoC.Reslove<SecurityTokenService>();
return sts;
}
}
Of course, this means that you need to create a static instance of your DI container so it is accessible to your SecurityTokenServiceConfiguration class. Personally, I don't like that idea because it makes your DI container accessible throughout the application, which can lead to abuse of the DI container as a service locator.
Ideally, there would be a way in any DI friendly framework to pass the container into an abstract factory in order to resolve service dependencies. However, since I am not familiar with WIF it is unclear whether that can be done - perhaps the class where the Issue method exists could have a constructor added? The trick is to keep walking up the chain until you find the first place in the framework where you can intervene and do all of your DI configuration there.
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.
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.
High Level
With StructureMap, Can I define a assembly scan rule that for an interface IRequestService<T> will return the object named TRequestService
Examples:
FooRequestService is injected when IRequestService<FooRequest> is requested
BarRequestService is injected when IRequestService<BarRequest> is requested
Details
I have a generic interface defined
public interface IRequestService<T> where T : Request
{
Response TransformRequest(T request, User current);
}
and then I have multiple Request objects that implement this interface
public class FooRequestService : IRequestService<Foo>
{
public Response TransformRequest(Foo request, User current) { ... }
}
public class BarRequestService : IRequestService<Bar>
{
public Response TransformRequest(Bar request, User current) { ... }
}
Now I am at the point where I need to register these classes so that StructureMap knows how to create them because in my controller I want have the following ctor (which I want StructureMap to inject a FooRequestService into)
public MyController(IRequestService<Foo> fooRequestService) { ... }
Right now to get around my issue I have implemented an empty interface and instead of having the FooRequestService implement the generic interface I have it implement this empty interface
public interface IFooRequestService : IRequestService<Foo> { }
Then my controllers ctor looks like so, which works with StructureMaps' Default Convention Scanner
public MyController(IFooRequestService fooRequestService) { ... }
How could I create a rule with StructureMap's assembly scanner to register all objects named TRequestService with IRequestService<T> (where T = "Foo", "Bar", etc) so that I don't have to create these empty Interface definitions?
To throw something else into the mix, where I am handling StructureMap's assembly scanning does not have any reference to the assembly that defines IRequestService<T> so this has to use some sort of reflection when doing this. I scanned the answer to "StructureMap Auto registration for generic types using Scan" but it seems as though that answer requires a reference to the assembly that contains the interface definition.
I am on the path of trying to write a custom StructureMap.Graph.ITypeScanner but I am kind of stuck on what to do there (mainly because I have little experience with reflection).
You are on the right path with the scanner. Thankfully there is one built into StructureMap. Unfortunately it is not yet, as of this writing, released. Get the latest from trunk and you will see a few new things available within the scanner configuration. An example for your needs is below.
public class MyRegistry : Registry
{
public MyRegistry()
{
Scan(x =>
{
x.TheCallingAssembly();
//x.AssembliesFromApplicationBaseDirectory();
x.WithDefaultConventions();
x.ConnectImplementationsToTypesClosing(typeof (IRequestService<>));
});
}
}
First you need to tell the scanner configuration which assemblies to include in the scan. The commented AssembliesFromApplicationBaseDirectory() method also might help if you are not doing a registry per assembly.
To get your generic types into the container use ConnectImplementationsToTypesClosing.
For an example on how to setup use registries when setting up the container see:
http://structuremap.sourceforge.net/ConfiguringStructureMap.htm
If you like you can skip using registries in general and just do a scan within ObjectFactory.Initialize.
Hope this helps.