I'm trying to get Caliburn Micro going in my project and I'm having trouble understanding guard methods (Can*) in the context of properties that aren't bound to the view (forgive me if I'm getting my terminology wrong).
I've adapted Tim Corey's example to add this snippet:
private bool _connected;
public bool Connected
{
get { return _connected; }
set { _connected = value; NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => Connected); }
}
public bool CanSayHello(bool connected)
{
return connected;
}
public void SayHello(bool connected)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello!");
}
public bool CanClearText(string firstName, string lastName)
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(firstName) && string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(lastName))
{
Connected = false;
return false;
}
else
{
Connected = true;
return true;
}
}
And the associated xaml is:
<!-- Row 4 -->
<Button x:Name="ClearText" Grid.Row="4" Grid.Column="1">Clear Names</Button>
<Button x:Name="SayHello" Grid.Row="4" Grid.Column="2">Say Hello</Button>
The SayHello button is never enabled (even though it seems like it should have the same state as CanClearText). The intent is to use Connected as an intermediary property; in the application I'm putting together, the idea is that Connected is actually set by an external Message (from a model--not connected to a view).
This question gets to it a bit, but I'd like to avoid explicitly calling NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => CanSayHello); and let the Caliburn Micro framework do the work for me. I'm pretty new to this, and I'm sure there's something simple I'm missing--thanks for your help.
Caliburn Micro, in this particular, case might not provide a easy solution. You would have to trigger the NotifyPropertyChanged manually for the dependend properties like CanSayHello each time Connected Property changes. However, you could make use of Fody Extensions which could do the same for you, without explicitly typing the code.
For example,
[AlsoNotify(nameof(CanSayHello))]
public bool Connected
{
get { return _connected; }
set { _connected = value; NotifyOfPropertyChange(() => Connected); }
}
This, with the help of Code weaving would do the NotifyPropertyChanged for without having to explicitly do so yourself.
Related
I'm trying to implement a web application using ASP.NET MVC and the Microsoft Unity DI framework. The application needs to support multiple user sessions at the same time, each of them with their own connection to a separate database (but all users using the same DbContext; the database schemas are identical, it's just the data that is different).
Upon a user's log-in, I register the necessary type mappings to the application's Unity container, using a session-based lifetime manager that I found in another question here.
My container is initialized like this:
// Global.asax.cs
public static UnityContainer CurrentUnityContainer { get; set; }
protected void Application_Start()
{
// ...other code...
CurrentUnityContainer = UnityConfig.Initialize();
// misc services - nothing data access related, apart from the fact that they all depend on IRepository<ClientContext>
UnityConfig.RegisterComponents(CurrentUnityContainer);
}
// UnityConfig.cs
public static UnityContainer Initialize()
{
UnityContainer container = new UnityContainer();
DependencyResolver.SetResolver(new UnityDependencyResolver(container));
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new Unity.WebApi.UnityDependencyResolver(container);
return container;
}
This is the code that's called upon logging in:
// UserController.cs
UnityConfig.RegisterUserDataAccess(MvcApplication.CurrentUnityContainer, UserData.Get(model.AzureUID).CurrentDatabase);
// UnityConfig.cs
public static void RegisterUserDataAccess(IUnityContainer container, string databaseName)
{
container.AddExtension(new DataAccessDependencies(databaseName));
}
// DataAccessDependencies.cs
public class DataAccessDependencies : UnityContainerExtension
{
private readonly string _databaseName;
public DataAccessDependencies(string databaseName)
{
_databaseName = databaseName;
}
protected override void Initialize()
{
IConfigurationBuilder configurationBuilder = Container.Resolve<IConfigurationBuilder>();
Container.RegisterType<ClientContext>(new SessionLifetimeManager(), new InjectionConstructor(configurationBuilder.GetConnectionString(_databaseName)));
Container.RegisterType<IRepository<ClientContext>, RepositoryService<ClientContext>>(new SessionLifetimeManager());
}
}
// SessionLifetimeManager.cs
public class SessionLifetimeManager : LifetimeManager
{
private readonly string _key = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
public override void RemoveValue(ILifetimeContainer container = null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session.Remove(_key);
}
public override void SetValue(object newValue, ILifetimeContainer container = null)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[_key] = newValue;
}
public override object GetValue(ILifetimeContainer container = null)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[_key];
}
protected override LifetimeManager OnCreateLifetimeManager()
{
return new SessionLifetimeManager();
}
}
This works fine as long as only one user is logged in at a time. The data is fetched properly, the dashboards work as expected, and everything's just peachy keen.
Then, as soon as a second user logs in, disaster strikes.
The last user to have prompted a call to RegisterUserDataAccess seems to always have "priority"; their data is displayed on the dashboard, and nothing else. Whether this is initiated by a log-in, or through a database access selection in my web application that calls the same method to re-route the user's connection to another database they have permission to access, the last one to draw always imposes their data on all other users of the web application. If I understand correctly, this is a problem the SessionLifetimeManager was supposed to solve - unfortunately, I really can't seem to get it to work.
I sincerely doubt that a simple and common use-case like this - multiple users logged into an MVC application who each are supposed to access their own, separate data - is beyond the abilities of Unity, so obviously, I must be doing something very wrong here. Having spent most of my day searching through depths of the internet I wasn't even sure truly existed, I must, unfortunately, now realize that I am at a total and utter loss here.
Has anyone dealt with this issue before? Has anyone dealt with this use-case before, and if yes, can anyone tell me how to change my approach to make this a little less headache-inducing? I am utterly desperate at this point and am considering rewriting my entire data access methodology just to make it work - not the healthiest mindset for clean and maintainable code.
Many thanks.
the issue seems to originate from your registration call, when registering the same type multiple times with unity, the last registration call wins, in this case, that will be data access object for whoever user logs-in last. Unity will take that as the default registration, and will create instances that have the connection to that user's database.
The SessionLifetimeManager is there to make sure you get only one instance of the objects you resolve under one session.
One option to solve this is to use named registration syntax to register the data-access types under a key that maps to the logged-in user (could be the database name), and on the resolve side, retrieve this user key, and use it resolve the corresponding data access implementation for the user
Thank you, Mohammed. Your answer has put me on the right track - I ended up finally solving this using a RepositoryFactory which is instantiated in an InjectionFactory during registration and returns a repository that always wraps around a ClientContext pointing to the currently logged on user's currently selected database.
// DataAccessDependencies.cs
protected override void Initialize()
{
IConfigurationBuilder configurationBuilder = Container.Resolve<IConfigurationBuilder>();
Container.RegisterType<IRepository<ClientContext>>(new InjectionFactory(c => {
ClientRepositoryFactory repositoryFactory = new ClientRepositoryFactory(configurationBuilder);
return repositoryFactory.GetRepository();
}));
}
// ClientRepositoryFactory.cs
public class ClientRepositoryFactory : IRepositoryFactory<RepositoryService<ClientContext>>
{
private readonly IConfigurationBuilder _configurationBuilder;
public ClientRepositoryFactory(IConfigurationBuilder configurationBuilder)
{
_configurationBuilder = configurationBuilder;
}
public RepositoryService<ClientContext> GetRepository()
{
var connectionString = _configurationBuilder.GetConnectionString(UserData.Current.CurrentPermission);
ClientContext ctx = new ClientContext(connectionString);
RepositoryService<ClientContext> repository = new RepositoryService<ClientContext>(ctx);
return repository;
}
}
// UserData.cs (multiton-singleton-hybrid)
public static UserData Current
{
get
{
var currentAADUID = (string)(HttpContext.Current.Session["currentAADUID"]);
return Get(currentAADUID);
}
}
public static UserData Get(string AADUID)
{
UserData instance;
lock(_instances)
{
if(!_instances.TryGetValue(AADUID, out instance))
{
throw new UserDataNotInitializedException();
}
}
return instance;
}
public static UserData Current
{
get
{
var currentAADUID = (string)(HttpContext.Current.Session["currentAADUID"]);
return Get(currentAADUID);
}
}
public static UserData Get(string AADUID)
{
UserData instance;
lock(_instances)
{
if(!_instances.TryGetValue(AADUID, out instance))
{
throw new UserDataNotInitializedException();
}
}
return instance;
}
Using AutoFixture with the AutoFixture.AutoMoq package, I sometimes find tests that weren't configured to correctly test the thing they meant to test, but the problem was never discovered because of the default (Loose) Mock behavior:
public interface IService
{
bool IsSomethingTrue(int id);
}
void Main()
{
var fixture = new Fixture()
.Customize(new AutoMoqCustomization());
var service = fixture.Freeze<Mock<IService>>();
Console.WriteLine(service.Object.IsSomethingTrue(1)); // false
}
I'd like to make Mocks get created with Strict behavior, so we're forced to call Setup() for the methods we expect to be called. I can do this for each individual mock like this:
fixture.Customize<Mock<IService>>(c => c.FromFactory(() => new Mock<IService>(MockBehavior.Strict)));
But after combing through source code for AutoMoqCustomization() and the various ISpecimenBuilder and other implementations, I'm pretty lost as to the best way to just make all Mocks get initialized with strict behavior. The framework appears to be very flexible and extensible, so I'm sure there's a simple way to do this--I just can't figure out how.
There's no simple built-in feature that will enable you to do something like that, but it shouldn't be that hard to do.
Essentially, you'd need to change MockConstructorQuery so that it invokes the constructor that takes a MockBehavior value, and pass in MockBehavior.Strict.
Now, you can't change that behaviour in MockConstructorQuery, but that class is only some 9-10 lines of code, so you should be able to create a new class that implements IMethodQuery by using MockConstructorQuery as a starting point.
Likewise, you'll also need to create a custom ICustomization that does almost exactly the same as AutoMoqCustomization, with the only exception that it uses your custom IMethodQuery with strict mock configuration instead of MockConstructorQuery. That's another 7 lines of code you'll need to write.
All that said, in my experience, using strict mocks is a bad idea. It'll make your tests brittle, and you'll waste a lot of time mending 'broken' tests. I can only recommend that you don't do this, but now I've warned you; it's your foot.
For those interested, down below you can find #MarkSeemann's reply translated into code. I am pretty sure it does not cover all use cases and it was not heavily tested. But it should be a good starting point.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Reflection;
using Moq;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture.AutoMoq;
using Ploeh.AutoFixture.Kernel;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class StrictAutoMoqCustomization : ICustomization
{
public StrictAutoMoqCustomization() : this(new MockRelay()) { }
public StrictAutoMoqCustomization(ISpecimenBuilder relay)
{
// TODO Null check params
Relay = relay;
}
public ISpecimenBuilder Relay { get; }
public void Customize(IFixture fixture)
{
// TODO Null check params
fixture.Customizations.Add(new MockPostprocessor(new MethodInvoker(new StrictMockConstructorQuery())));
fixture.ResidueCollectors.Add(Relay);
}
}
public class StrictMockConstructorMethod : IMethod
{
private readonly ConstructorInfo ctor;
private readonly ParameterInfo[] paramInfos;
public StrictMockConstructorMethod(ConstructorInfo ctor, ParameterInfo[] paramInfos)
{
// TODO Null check params
this.ctor = ctor;
this.paramInfos = paramInfos;
}
public IEnumerable<ParameterInfo> Parameters => paramInfos;
public object Invoke(IEnumerable<object> parameters) => ctor.Invoke(parameters?.ToArray() ?? new object[] { });
}
public class StrictMockConstructorQuery : IMethodQuery
{
public IEnumerable<IMethod> SelectMethods(Type type)
{
if (!IsMock(type))
{
return Enumerable.Empty<IMethod>();
}
if (!GetMockedType(type).IsInterface && !IsDelegate(type))
{
return Enumerable.Empty<IMethod>();
}
var ctor = type.GetConstructor(new[] { typeof(MockBehavior) });
return new IMethod[]
{
new StrictMockConstructorMethod(ctor, ctor.GetParameters())
};
}
private static bool IsMock(Type type)
{
return type != null && type.IsGenericType && typeof(Mock<>).IsAssignableFrom(type.GetGenericTypeDefinition()) && !GetMockedType(type).IsGenericParameter;
}
private static Type GetMockedType(Type type)
{
return type.GetGenericArguments().Single();
}
internal static bool IsDelegate(Type type)
{
return typeof(MulticastDelegate).IsAssignableFrom(type.BaseType);
}
}
}
Usage
var fixture = new Fixture().Customize(new StrictAutoMoqCustomization());
I have a problem when I try to bind the "Enabled" property of my Android Button to a Boolean of my ViewModel using the MvvmCross framework and I really don't know the origin of it.
So I have a ViewModel which contains the two following properties :
private ProjectDetailDTO _projectDetail;
public ProjectDetailDTO ProjectDetail
{
get { return this._projectDetail; }
set
{
_projectDetail = value;
RaisePropertyChanged(() => ProjectDetail);
RaisePropertyChanged(() => HasPicture);
}
}
private bool _hasPicture;
public bool HasPicture
{
get { return ((this.ProjectDetail != null) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(this.ProjectDetail.Pictures)); }
set { _hasPicture = value;
RaisePropertyChanged(() => HasPicture);
}
}
As you would understand, my button is bind to the HasPicture property. So I have the following code for my button in my .axml file :
<Button
local:MvxLang="Text LblSeePicturesValue"
local:MvxBind="Enabled HasPicture,Click ShowProjectPicturesCommand"
android:id="#+id/buttonPictures"
android:layout_width="match_parent"
android:layout_height="wrap_content"
android:layout_alignParentBottom="true" />
I don't think it's a ViewModel problem because my WP application works well with this code. In fact, my ProjectDetailDTO is filled by calling a web service, so by an asynchronous method. I think it's why when the binding is realized the HasPicture property has the false value. But with my ViewModel code, the HasPicture property should be updated when the ProjectDetailDTO is filled. Is there anything I did wrong in my Android View?
Thanks for any help !
I think what you are seeing here is some interaction between ICommand.CanExecute and the Enabled property. There's a discussion about this on https://github.com/MvvmCross/MvvmCross/issues/729
To work around this, try switching the binding to:
local:MvxBind="Click ShowProjectPicturesCommand;Enabled HasPicture"
(Also note that the separator in bindings is a ; - not a ,)
SignalR does not have the ability to have client methods which returns a value. So I am trying to create a helper class to make this possible.
So this is what I am trying to do:
Server side: Call client method and provide unique request id Client(clientId).GetValue(requestId)
Server side: Save requestId and wait for answer using ManualResetEvent
Client side: Inside void GetValue(Guid requestId) call server method hubProxy.Invoke("GetValueFinished", requestId, 10)
Server side: find waiting method by requestId => set return value => set signal
Server side: Method not longer waiting vor ManualResetEvent and returns retrieved value.
I am able to get it work unfortunately. Here is my code:
public static class MethodHandler
{
private static ConcurrentDictionary<Guid, ReturnWaiter> runningMethodWaiters = new ConcurrentDictionary<Guid,ReturnWaiter>();
public static TResult GetValue<TResult>(Action<Guid> requestValue)
{
Guid key = Guid.NewGuid();
ReturnWaiter returnWaiter = new ReturnWaiter(key);
runningMethodWaiters.TryAdd(key, returnWaiter);
requestValue.Invoke(key);
returnWaiter.Signal.WaitOne();
return (TResult)returnWaiter.Value;
}
public static void GetValueResult(Guid key, object value)
{
ReturnWaiter waiter;
if (runningMethodWaiters.TryRemove(key, out waiter))
{
waiter.Value = value;
}
}
}
internal class ReturnWaiter
{
private ManualResetEvent _signal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public ManualResetEvent Signal { get { return _signal; } }
public Guid Key {get; private set;}
public ReturnWaiter(Guid key)
{
Key = key;
}
private object _value;
public object Value
{
get { return _value; }
set
{
_value = value;
Signal.Set();
}
}
}
Using this MethodHandler class I need to have two method server side:
public int GetValue(string clientId)
{
return MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(clientId).Client.GetValue(key));
}
public void GetValueResult(Guid key, object value)
{
MethodHandler.GetValueResult(key, value);
}
Client side implementation is like this:
// Method registration
_hubProxy.On("GetValue", new Action<Guid>(GetValue));
public void GetValue(Guid requestId)
{
int result = 10;
_hubConnection.Invoke("GetValueResult", requestId, result);
}
PROBLEM:
if I call server side GetValue("clientid"). The client method will not be invoked. If I comment out returnWaiter.Signal.WaitOne();, client side GetValue is called and server side GetValueResult is called. But of course this time the method has already returned.
I thought is has to do with the ManualResetEvent but even using while(!returnWaiter.HasValue) Thread.Sleep(100); will not fix this issue.
Any ideas how to fix this issue?
Thanks in advance!
First, I think that, rather than asking for help in how to make it synchronous, it would be best if you just told us what it is you're trying to do so we could suggest a proper approach to do it.
You don't show your MethodHandler::Retrieve method, but I can guess pretty much what it looks like and it's not even the real problem. I have to tell you in the nicest possible way that this is a really bad idea. It will simply never scale. This would only work with a single SignalR server instance because you're relying on machine specific resources (e.g. kernel objects behind the ManualResetEvent) to provide the blocking. Maybe you don't need to scale beyond one server to meet your requirements, but this still a terrible waste of resources even on a single server.
You're actually on the right track with the client calling back with the requestId as a correlating identifier. Why can't you use that correlation to resume logical execution of whatever process you are in the middle of on the server side? That way no resources are held around while waiting for the message to be delivered to the client, processed and then the follow up message, GetValueResult in your sample, to be sent back a the server instance.
Problem solved:
The problem only occured in Hub.OnConnected and Hub.OnDisconnected. I don't have an exact explanation why, but probably these methods must be able to finish before it will handle your method call to the client.
So I changed code:
public override Task OnConnected()
{
// NOT WORKING
Debug.Print(MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(Context.ConnectionId).Client.GetValue(key)));
// WORKING
new Thread(() => Debug.Print(MethodHandler.GetValue<int>(key => Clients(Context.ConnectionId).Client.GetValue(key)))).Start();
return base.OnConnected();
}
I'm pretty new to MVVM light world, and after searches I can't find what I want to do.
My WP7 application contains a pivot, each pivot item content is View1 and viewmodel is VM1.
When loading my application, I'd like to create every pivot item with the same view and view model but with different parameter.
example :
PivotItem 1 -> send param "car" to the view model
PivotItem 2 -> send param "truck" to the view model, etc.
Google told me to use messaging but if I send 2 messages from my MainViewModel, both PivotItem1 and PivotItem2 ViewModel will receive these messages.
Am I wrong with this approach ?
Is there another solution to succeed ?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
PS : be indulgent, english is not my native language, don't hesitate to ask for further information.
Regards,
Aymeric Lagier
To seperate the messages use the second constructor signature whereby you can pass a token. This token can be anything but I generally use an enum to store all my message types within the system.
Create a static class in a common library and reference this in all projects where you need to send or receive messages.
The following code hopefully shows this approach, notice I am sending a string as a value within the message but this can be anything, even a complex object such as one of your business objects.
namespace MyProject.Common
{
public static class AppMessages
{
enum MessageTypes
{
ViewmodelA,
ViewmodelB
}
public static class ViewModelAUpdate
{
public static void Send(string value)
{
Messenger.Default.Send(value, MessageTypes.ViewmodelA);
}
public static void Register(object recipient, Action<string> action)
{
Messenger.Default.Register(recipient, MessageTypes.ViewmodelA, action);
}
}
public static class ViewModelBUpdate
{
public static void Send(string value)
{
Messenger.Default.Send(value, MessageTypes.ViewmodelB);
}
public static void Register(object recipient, Action<string> action)
{
Messenger.Default.Register(recipient, MessageTypes.ViewmodelB, action);
}
}
}
}
How about using a method to set the message you want to receive. (this could be done as a parameter in the constructor or a property as well)
public void RegisterForAppMessage(AppMessages.MessageTypes messageType)
{
switch (messageType)
{
case AppMessages.MessageTypes.PivotViewItem1Message:
AppMessages.PivotViewItem1Message.Register(this,DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem1Messages)
break;
case AppMessages.MessageTypes.PivotViewItem2Message:
AppMessages.PivotViewItem2Message.Register(this,DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem2Messages)
break;
}
}
private void DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem2Messages(string obj)
{
// TODO: Implement this method
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
private void DoSomethingWhenIRecievePivotViewItem1Messages(string obj)
{
// TODO: Implement this method
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
Messaging sounds a bit heavy for this purpose. Could you simply inject a parameter into your ViewModel. If you already have MVVMLight you also have support for SimpleIOC. Maybe let the view locate its ViewModel when the view is resolved and there decide which parameter to use on the view model?
You can see an example of it here