we have the following serilog code, collections and simple strings are being written as expected, but when we try to log an object, serilog outputs the following rater than the object, is there any other setup that needs to be done to log all the properties of the metadata object ?
[16:40:59 INF] Processing {"$type": "Metadata"}
[16:40:59 INF] Processing Program+Metadata
Note: we are using this from a console application
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using Serilog;
class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Log.Logger = new LoggerConfiguration()
.MinimumLevel.Information()
.WriteTo.Console()
.WriteTo.File("log.txt",
rollingInterval: RollingInterval.Day,
rollOnFileSizeLimit: true)
.CreateLogger();
Metadata metadata =new Metadata();
metadata.Name = "hello";
var fruit = new[] { "Apple", "Pear", "Orange" };
Log.Information("In my bowl I have {Fruit}", fruit);
Log.Information("Processing {#HubTableMetadata}", metadata);
Log.Information("Processing {HubTableMetadata}", metadata);
Log.CloseAndFlush();
Console.Read();
}
public class Metadata
{
public string Name;
public string[] Tags;
public List<string> keys;
}
}
Serilog destructures properties, but your Metadata class only defines fields.
To get the behaviour you want, update your Metadata class to use properties:
public class Metadata
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public string[] Tags { get; set; }
public List<string> Keys { get; set; }
}
If you want to customize the output structured data, you can take a look the different Destructurama projects.
You might also be interested in reading this post "Using attributes to control destructuring in Serilog".
Related
I'm working on a new project that uses CosmosDB and Entity Framework Core (via the Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Cosmos NuGet package, version 5.0.7; the project itself is .NET Core 5). I'm new to both, and running into an issue I can't sort out.
In short, I need to save a complex object to the database. It's a big model that will have multiple collections of classes underneath it, each with their own properties and some with collections underneath them as well. I'm trying to configure EF with OwnsOne and OwnsMany to store these child objects underneath the top-level one. The code compiles, and will save to the database so long as all the owned objects are left empty. But whenever I put anything into an owned object, either with OwnsOne or OwnsMany, I get a pair of NullReferenceExceptions.
I've tried to strip my code down to the very basics. Here's how it currently looks.
Owner and owned classes:
public class Questionnaire
{
// Constructors
private Questionnaire() { }
public Questionnaire(Guid id)
{
Test = "Test property.";
TV = new TestQ();
Id = id;
}
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Test { get; set; }
public TestQ TV { get; set; }
// Public Methods
public void AddForm(Form f)
{
// not currently using this method
//Forms.Add(f);
}
}
public class TestQ
{
public TestQ()
{
TestValue = "test ownsone value";
}
public string TestValue { get; set; }
}
DbContext:
public class QuestionnaireDbContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Questionnaire> Questionnaires { get; set; }
public QuestionnaireDbContext(DbContextOptions<QuestionnaireDbContext> options) : base(options) { }
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.HasDefaultContainer(nameof(Questionnaires));
modelBuilder.Entity<Questionnaire>().HasKey(q => q.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<Questionnaire>().OwnsOne(q => q.TV);
}
}
And the code from the service that calls the dbContext (note that this is based on a generic service that I didn't set up originally). The actual exceptions are thrown here.
public virtual TEntity Add(TEntity entity)
{
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Added;
_context.SaveChanges();
return entity;
}
Ultimately I need this to work with OwnsMany and a collection, but I figured it might be simpler to get it working with OwnsOne first. The key thing to note here is that if I comment out the line
TV = new TestQ();
in the Questionnaire class, the model persists correctly into CosmosDB. It's only when I actually instantiate an owned entity that I get the NullReferenceExceptions.
Any advice would be much appreciated! Thank you!
Well, I'm not sure why this is the case, but the issue turned out to be with how we were adding the document. Using this generic code:
public virtual async Task<TEntity> Add(TEntity entity)
{
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Added;
await _context.SaveChanges();
return entity;
}
was the issue. It works just fine if I use the actual QuestionnaireDbContext class like so:
context.Add(questionnaire);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
I have .Net Core 3.1 Web Api. I am using System.Text.Json serializer since it became a default for .Net Core 3.x applications. I have set global enum to string converter as follows:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.AddControllers()
.AddJsonOptions(options =>
options.JsonSerializerOptions.Converters.Add(new JsonStringEnumConverter())));
...
}
Enums are converted to string for controller responses (which makes sense since I configure on AddControllers() method). But if I try to manually serialize an object it still serializes enum as int. Sample below:
public class TestClass
{
public void Test()
{
var data = JsonSerializer.Serialize(new MyObject { Enum1 = MyEnum.Value1, Enum2 = MyEnum.Value2 });
}
public class MyObject
{
public MyEnum Enum1 { get; set; }
public MyEnum Enum2 { get; set; }
}
public enum MyEnum
{
Value1 = 1,
Value2 = 2
}
}
OUTPUT:
data [string]: "{\"Enum1\":1,\"Enum2\":2}"
If I add conversion attribute manually then it serializes as desired:
public class MyObject
{
[JsonConverter(typeof(JsonStringEnumConverter))]
public MyEnum Enum1 { get; set; }
public MyEnum Enum2 { get; set; }
}
OUTPUT
data [string]: "{\"Enum1\":\"Value1\",\"Enum2\":2}"
Is there a way to set global json serialization options (enum to string conversion) that would apply for manual serialization as well?
Or maybe I should just always stick to the explicit attributes?
Currently you can't. JsonSerializer being a static class with only purely static methods, default options cannot be set. You can check this open issue on Github. It seems that it has been designed this way for better performance.
As an alternative, you can create your own static class
public static class CustomJsonSerializer
{
private static JsonSerializerOptions serializerSettings =
new JsonSerializerOptions { /* whatever you need */};
public static T Deserialize<T>(this string json)
{
return JsonSerializer.Deserialize<T>(json, serializerSettings );
}
// etc.
}
I managed to get this to work by adding NewtonsoftJson and then register StringEnumConverter:
services
.AddControllers(jsonOptions => jsonOptions.ReturnHttpNotAcceptable = true)
.AddNewtonsoftJson(jsonOptions =>
{
jsonOptions.SerializerSettings.Converters.Add((JsonConverter) new StringEnumConverter());
}
I have a class called AppSettings where I store some settings of my application. So far, I only used Lists in my DbContext like
public class MyDbContext: DbContext {
public DbSet<User> Users { get; get; }
}
But for the settings, I need no list. I only want to store a single instance of my AppSettings class. I tried to set it as a normal member
public class AppSettingsContext: DbContext {
public AppSettings AppSetting { get; get; }
}
But this is not working: EF will throw an exception that the entity type AppSettings is not a part of the model for the current context. The Code:
using(var db = new AppSettingsContext()) {
var setting = new AppSettings() {
AttributeA = "Test",
//...
};
db.Entry(setting).State = EntityState.Added;
db.SaveChanges();
}
Is it possible to do this with EF? Or am I forced to implement this logic on my own by using a not mapped attribute where I make sure that only one single instance is stored and returned by the database?
If you want to store your settings in the DB, you can't store singular, that's not how TSQL works.
If you only want singular settings for a user, I would recomend web.config. If you REALLY want to store it in the DB though and want it to have a more concrete feeling you could just extend your database context like so:
public class MyDbContext: DbContext {
public DbSet<User> Users { get; get; }
public DbSet<AppSettings> AppSettings { get; set;}
}
public static class MyDbExtensions
{
public static async Task<AppSettings> DbSettings(this MyDbContext context, Guid settingsGuid)
{
return await context.AppSettings.FirstAsync(as => as.Id == settingsGuid)
}
// OR
public static async Task<AppSettings> UserSettings(this MyDbContext context)
{
return await context.AppSettings.FirstAsync(as => as.Id == UserSettingsDbGuid)
}
public static Guid UserSettingsDbGuid = "Guid of user settings goes here"
}
// example usage:
var context = GETDBCONTEXTMETHOD();
var userSettings == context.DbSettings(MyDbExtensions.UserSettingsDbGuid);
// OR
userSettings == context.UserSettings();
recently posted about questioning how unsafe static variables are, I've since discovered I need to get rid of them. But I cannot figure out how to? Was thinking a static Get() method for each class, that returns a single instance, but then that instance would have to be declared static.
So the only way to do it, is to have the instance references (for each helper, I.E user helper.cs, imagehelper.cs etc.) is to declare them as instance properties on some sort of globally accessible class? But which class? Is there something I'm missing here?
Code below of a sample class I need to change:
sing System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Web;
using Mvc.Mailer;
namespace MVCWebsite.Helpers
{
public class AppSettings
{
public static void OnAppInit()
{
//General
AppName = "MyApp";
DesktopBaseURLs = new Dictionary<string, string>();
DesktopBaseURLs.Add("dev", "localhost:50560");
DesktopBaseURLs.Add("test", "www.test.whatever.com");
DesktopBaseURLs.Add("live", "www.whatever.com");
MobileBaseURLs = new Dictionary<string, string>();
MobileBaseURLs.Add("dev", "m.local.whatever.com");
MobileBaseURLs.Add("test", "m.test.whatever.com");
MobileBaseURLs.Add("live", "m.whatever.com");
//Emails
EmailHostName = AppName + ".com"; //For the moment atleast
NoReplyEmailAddress = "no-reply#" + EmailHostName.ToLower();
SupportEmailAddress = "support#" + EmailHostName.ToLower();
ErrorEmailAddress = "errors#" + EmailHostName.ToLower();
//Resources
TempFileURL = "/content/temp/";
UserDataURL = "/content/user-content/";
ProfilePicturesURL = UserDataURL + "profile-pictures/";
var a = GlobalHelper.GetURLAsServerPath(ProfilePicturesURL);
var b = a;
}
//General
public static string AppName { get; set; }
public static Dictionary<string, string> DesktopBaseURLs;
public static Dictionary<string, string> MobileBaseURLs;
//Emails
public static string EmailHostName { get; set; }
public static string NoReplyEmailAddress { get; set; }
public static string SupportEmailAddress { get; set; }
public static string ErrorEmailAddress { get; set; }
//Resources
public static string UserDataURL { get; set; }
public static string TempFileURL { get; set; }
public static string ProfilePicturesURL { get; set; }
//Methods
public static void SetAppURL()
{
}
}
}
I recommend creating an interface for your AppSettings class, so that you can use it in your controllers now, and implement it in different ways as you see fit:
public interface IAppSettings
{
string AppName { get; set; }
...
}
You can then implement it immediately with your static class via a wrapper class:
public class AppSettingsWrapper : IAppSettings
{
public AppName
{
get
{
return AppSettings.AppName;
}
set
{
AppSettings.AppName = value;
}
}
...
}
Later on, you can create an implementation of IAppSettings that uses session, or cookies, or database values, or whatever. The important thing is to abstract the way you store things so that you can implement in a way that meets your needs.
The answer to you previous question clearly stated that the IDictionary was the only unsafe variable in your static method because it's not thread safe. You just need to store these variables differently. You don't need to get rid of all of your static variables. You just need to change IDictionary to something thread safe.
By the way, someone there makes a good coment about web.config
Right I think I've figured it out, they should be stored as instance variables within Global.asax.cs. This file contains your Application class which inherits from System.Web.HttpApplication. This master class is limited to one instance (of itself) per request. So if you store any references to your helpers here, you can reference them by going, MvcApplication.MyHelper.DoSomething(); Someone please correct me if this is wrong, but seems right to me. "At any single point of time, an HTTPApplication instance handles only one request, so we don't need to think about locking and unlocking of any non static members, but for static members we do require. " -from : http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/87316/A-walkthrough-to-Application-State#c
I want to mock my Repository object in such a way that it can still do actual DB retrieve operations. Only for Saving operations, I wanted to setup to return mock data since I don't want it to save into the DB.
How should I do it?
Thanks.
Maybe you should make your Save operation virtual and override it in a subclass which you use in your tests rather than using Moq?
First of all, your unit tests should never actually go out to the database (it is all right for integration tests, but that is a larger topic). What you want to do is pretty straightforward with Moq, though:
public class MyRepo
{
public virtual string Save(MyClass foo)
{
// perform save...
}
}
public class MyService
{
public MyRepo Repo { get; set; }
public string VerifyAndSave(MyClass foo)
{
// verify foo...
return new Repo.Save(foo);
}
}
public class MyClass()
{
public string SomeData { get; set; }
}
Notice the virtual modifiers on the methods--these are important for Moq to be able to stub them.
In your tests you could then do something like this:
[TestClass]
public class SomeTests
{
private Mock<MyRepo> MockRepo { get; set; }
private MyService Target { get; set; }
[TestInitialize]
public void Setup()
{
MockRepo = new Mock<MyRepo>();
Target = new MyService();
Target.Repo = MockRepo.Object;
}
[TestMethod]
public void MyTest()
{
const string expectedOutput = "SAVED";
MyClass exampleData = new MyClass();
MockRepo.Setup(x => x.Save(It.IsAny<MyClass>())).Returns(expectedOutput);
Target.VerifyAndSave(exampleData);
MockRepo.Verify(x => x.Save(It.IsAny<MyClass>()));
}
}
The chained calls of Setup and Returns in this case would guarantee that the calling method (i.e. VerifyAndSave) would see the value that you specified--"SAVED" in this case.
For more examples, take a look at the Moq quickstart docs.