When i try to run the project, i am getting this kind of error: "System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object"
pointing in this code:
sqliteconnection = DependencyService.Get().GetConnection();
This is my Class for DB actions:
namespace DevoApp.DevoAppFinal.Helpers
{
public class DatabaseHelper
{
static SQLiteConnection sqliteconnection;
public const string DbFileName = "Devotion.db";
public DatabaseHelper()
{
sqliteconnection = DependencyService.Get<ISQLite>().GetConnection();
sqliteconnection.CreateTable<Devotion>();
}
// Get All Contact data
public List<Devotion> GetAllDevotionsData()
{
return (from data in sqliteconnection.Table<Devotion>() select data).ToList();
}
//Get Specific Contact data
public Devotion GetDevotionData(int id)
{
return sqliteconnection.Table<Devotion>().FirstOrDefault(t => t.devotionalId == id);
}
// Delete all Contacts Data
public void DeleteAllDevotions()
{
sqliteconnection.DeleteAll<Devotion>();
}
// Delete Specific Contact
public void DeleteDevotion(int id)
{
sqliteconnection.Delete<Devotion>(id);
}
// Insert new Contact to DB
public void InsertDevotion(Devotion contact)
{
sqliteconnection.Insert(contact);
}
// Update Contact Data
public void UpdateDevotion(Devotion contact)
{
sqliteconnection.Update(contact);
}
}
}
When using the DependencyService, you have to implement the interface in each targeted platform project.
In this case, you should have the ISQLite interface implemented on the platforms you're targeting, i.e. iOS and Android.
To make Xamarin find it at runtime, you will have to register the implementation with the Dependency attribute above the namespace. Observe the following example based on a few assumptions of your project.
In your shared library you have declared the interface:
public interface ISQLite
{
// Members here
}
Nothing fancy going on there. Then for each platform, you want to run the app on, do something like this:
[assembly: Xamarin.Forms.Dependency (typeof (SQLiteImplementation_iOS))]
namespace DevoApp.DevoAppFinal.iOS
{
public class SQLiteImplementation_iOS : ISQLite
{
// ... Your code
}
}
From the error, it looks like you forgot to add the attribute
Related
I am creating my first Blazor web application for self education purposes. There is a simple database with data. Dataset is currently rather small. However while clicking on page link it takes some 1-2 seconds to load. Just wondering that how long it would take if dataset would consist of larger amount of items. Is there a way to load page first and then populate the data?
public class EmployeesBase : ComponentBase:
[Inject]
protected IRepository Repository { get; set; }
protected List<BlazorCompanyManager.Data.Employee> employees;
protected override void OnInitialized()
{
this.employees = this.Repository.GetEmployees();
}
public interface IRepository:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace BlazorCompanyManager.Data
{
public interface IRepository
{
public List<Employee> GetEmployees();
public Employee GetEmployee(Guid id);
public bool UpdateEmployee(Employee employee);
public void AddEmployee(Employee employee);
public void DeleteEmployee(Guid id);
}
}
public class Repository : IRepository:
protected readonly ApplicationDbContext dbContext;
public Repository(ApplicationDbContext db)
{
this.dbContext = db;
}
public List<Employee> GetEmployees()
{
return this.dbContext.EmployeeTable.ToList();
}
I have tried to make it work with OnInitializedAsync and other override methods, but got no success so far. Could anyone give some idea on how it can be done?
You''re running an async code block synchronously, thus blocking the UI thread.
this.dbContext.EmployeeTable.ToList()
should look like this:
public async ValueTask<List<Employee>> GetEmployeesAsync()
{
using var dbContext = this.DBContext.CreateDbContext();
var list = await dbContext
.EmployeeeTable
.ToListAsync()
?? new List<TRecord>();
return list;
}
To do this you also need to move to an IDbContextFactory in your Repository. You can no longer rely on a single DbContext.
protected virtual IDbContextFactory<MyDbContext> DBContext { get; set; } = null;
public xxxxxRepository(IConfiguration configuration, IDbContextFactory<MyDbContext> dbContext)
=> this.DBContext = dbContext;
Startup/Program
var dbContext = configuration.GetValue<string>("Configuration:DBContext");
services.AddDbContextFactory<MyDbContext>(options => options.UseSqlServer(dbContext), ServiceLifetime.Singleton);
You component initialization then looks like this.
protected async override void OnInitializedAsyc()
{
this.employees = await this.Repository.GetEmployeesAsync();
}
Data loading will be dependant on your data server, but the UI will be responsive. You may need to consider paging as the data set grows - you can only display so many rows at once so why fetch them all at once!
I have created a asp.net web api project and implemented the below HTTP GET method in AccountController and the related service method & repository method in AccountService & AccountRepository respectively.
// WEB API
public class AccountController : ApiController
{
private readonly IAccountService _accountService;
public AccountController(IAccountService accountService)
{
_accountService = accountService;
}
[HttpGet, ActionName("UserProfile")]
public JsonResult<decimal> GetUserSalary(int userID)
{
var account = _accountService.GetUserSalary(userID);
if (account != null)
{
return Json(account.Salary);
}
return Json(0);
}
}
Service / Business Layer
public interface IAccountService
{
decimal GetUserSalary(int userId);
}
public class AccountService : IAccountService
{
readonly IAccountRepository _accountRepository = new AccountRepository();
public decimal GetUserSalary(int userId)
{
return _accountRepository.GetUserSalary(userId);
}
}
Repository / Data Access Layer
public interface IAccountRepository
{
decimal GetUserSalary(int userId);
}
public class AccountRepository : IAccountRepository
{
public decimal GetUserSalary(int userId)
{
using (var db = new AccountEntities())
{
var account = (from b in db.UserAccounts where b.UserID == userId select b).FirstOrDefault();
if (account != null)
{
return account.Salary;
}
}
return 0;
}
}
UnityConfig
public static class UnityConfig
{
public static void RegisterComponents()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
container.RegisterType<IAccountService, AccountService>();
container.RegisterType<IAccountRepository, AccountRepository>();
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new UnityDependencyResolver(container);
}
}
But when I invoke the API method GetUserSalary() I get an error saying
An error occurred when trying to create a controller of type 'AccountController'. Make sure that the controller has a parameterless public constructor.
Check that you did not forget to register Unity IoC container itself:
if you use ASP.NET Framework it could be - Global.asax or Startap.cs (Owin) via UnityConfig.RegisterComponents() method.
if you use ASP.NET Core then in the Startup.cs file (I was unable to find official guides for its configuting)
Your current constructor has parameters (or args if you prefer).
see:
public AccountController(IAccountService accountService)
{
_accountService = accountService;
}
All you need to do is add a "Parameter-less Constructor" into the controller as well.
public AccountController()
{
}
Parameter-less constructors are usually above the ones that have params, though as far as I am aware this is only due to standards not any actual effect(s) it may cause.
There is also an already existing issue/question similar to this I will link below that may provide further details.
Make sure that the controller has a parameterless public constructor error
I want to change my session proviced to statically typed - I just hate typing strings because of many many errors I do.
What technology am I using? ASP.NET MVC via EXT.NET MVC
I was trying to do that using web.config but the problem is that after add session state to it visual is not going to compile my code because of that session should be using strings as keys.
I want to use session by enums such as :
public enum SessionEnum{Model}
public class Bar{
void foo(){
Session[SessionEnum.Model] = "blah";
}
}
I am aware that I can create wrapper converting enums to strings but it's not very satisfying solution for me.
public class StorageWrapper{
public object this[SessionEnum enum]{ get{return Session[enum.toString()]}; //+set
}
What I did was create static object for base class for all of my controllers and then I was able to use it across them but after closing and opening the page again I wasn't able to get values from it. I guess I should serialize them somehow but I have no idea how.
Is there any way to do that?
EDIT
My session now looks like this :
[Serializable]
public abstract class DataWrapper<T> : HttpSessionStateBase
{
Dictionary<T, object> Dictionary { get; set; } = new Dictionary<T, object>();
public object this[T a]
{
get
{
try
{
return Dictionary[a];
}
catch
{
return null;
}
}
set { Dictionary[a] = value; }
}
}
[Serializable]
public class SessionWrapper : DataWrapper<SessionNames>
{}
public enum SessionNames { Model, Login, LastOpenedFile }
It's very simple.
Create a UserSession object which does everything you want (holds your values as enum etc), instantiate it, then put it in the session.
var US = new UserSession();
US.stuff = somestuff;
Session["UserSess"] = US
Then you can just always use Session["UserSess"].stuff;
Mmmm, wouldn't you use static const string instead of an enum?
using System.Web;
public static class SessionEnum
{
public static const string Model = "_Session_Model";
public static const string Login = "_Session_Login";
public static const string LastOpenedFile = "_Session_LastOpenedFile ";
}
class test
{
void test()
{
Session[SessionEnum.Model] = "blah";
}
}
I am stuck with this and I wonder what is the best way to approach this problem. I have a WebApi controller where I want to inject ICommand instance but I can know what is the instance I need once I inspect the Post request data. I'll give an example to be more clear but my question also applies to Winform events where you receive an event argument and depending of this event arg you want to have different implementation injected.
public class TestController : ApiController
{
public object Post(int id)
{
ICommand command = null;
if(id = 1)
{
command = new Id1Command();
}
else
{
command = new Id2Command();
}
return new object();
}
}
The only thing I can think of is creating a factory that accepts unity container as argument and inside that factory to call container.Resolve with named instance.
My problem with that is that I am taught that you shouldn't register or resolve outside your composition root and that is violation of the good practices (according Mark Seemann). I am looking for the best design for this problem in general.
I would use a CommandFactory and pass it to the TestController:
public class TestController : ApiController
{
private readonly ICommandFactory mCommandFactory;
public TestController(ICommandFactory CommandFactory)
{
mCommandFactory = CommandFactory;
}
public object Post(int id)
{
ICommand command = null;
if(id = 1)
{
command = CommandFactory.CreateId1Command();
}
else
{
command = CommandFactory.CreateId2Command();
}
return new object();
}
}
Now you have to make sure that Unity is creating the TestController. To do so, you have to implement, configure and set an IDependencyResolver. Check Dependency Injection in ASP.NET Web API 2.
Edit to your comment:
For this scenario you can use an autofactory using a functor that takes an int:
public class TestController : ApiController
{
private readonly Func<int, ICommand> mCommandFactory
public TestController(Func<int, ICommand> CommandFactory)
{
mCommandFactory = CommandFactory;
}
public object Post(int id)
{
var command mCommandFactory(id);
return new object();
}
}
The registration should look like this:
container.RegisterType<Func<int, ICommand>>(new InjectionFactory(
c => new Func<int, ICommand>(
id =>
{
if (id == 1)
{
return new Command();
}
else
{
return new Command2();
}
})));
Note: You still have to set the DependencyResolver!
I am going though the Apress ASP.NET MVC 3 book and trying to ensure I create Unit Tests for everything possible but after spending a good part of a day trying to work out why edit's wouldn't save (see this SO question) I wanted to create a unit test for this.
I have worked out that I need to create a unit test for the following class:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private EFDbContext context = new EFDbContext();
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
context.Products.Add(product);
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
context.Products.Remove(product);
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
public class EFDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
I am using Ninject.MVC3 and Moq and have created several unit tests before (while working though the previously mentioned book) so am slowly getting my head around it. I have already (hopefully correctly) created a constructor method to enable me to pass in _context:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private EFDbContext _context;
// constructor
public EFProductRepository(EFDbContext context) {
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return _context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
_context.Products.Add(product);
} else {
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
_context.SaveChanges();
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
_context.Products.Remove(product);
_context.SaveChanges();
}
}
BUT this is where I start to have trouble... I believe I need to create an Interface for EFDbContext (see below) so I can replace it with a mock repo for the tests BUT it is built on the class DbContext:
public class EFDbContext : DbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
from System.Data.Entity and I can't for the life of me work out how to create an interface for it... If I create the following interface I get errors due to lack of the method .SaveChanges() which is from the DbContext class and I can't build the interface using "DbContext" like the `EFDbContext is as it's a class not an interface...
using System;
using System.Data.Entity;
using SportsStore.Domain.Entities;
namespace SportsStore.Domain.Concrete {
interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
}
The original Source can be got from the "Source Code/Downloads" on this page encase I have missed something in the above code fragments (or just ask and I will add it).
I have hit the limit of what I understand and no mater what I search for or read I can't seem to work out how I get past this. Please help!
The problem here is that you have not abstracted enough. The point of abstractions/interfaces is to define a contract that exposes behavior in a technology-agnostic way.
In other words, it is a good first step that you created an interface for the EFDbContext, but that interface is still tied to the concrete implementation - DbSet (DbSet).
The quick fix for this is to expose this property as IDbSet instead of DbSet. Ideally you expose something even more abstract like IQueryable (though this doesn't give you the Add() methods, etc.). The more abstract, the easier it is to mock.
Then, you're left with fulfilling the rest of the "contract" that you rely on - namely the SaveChanges() method.
Your updated code would look like this:
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private IEFDbContext context;
public EFProductRepository(IEFDbContext context) {
this.context = context;
}
...
}
public interface IEFDbContext {
IDbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}
BUT... the main question you have to ask is: what are you trying to test (conversely, what are you trying to mock out/avoid testing)? In other words: are you trying to validate how your application works when something is saved, or are you testing the actual saving.
If you're just testing how your application works and don't care about actually saving to the database, I'd consider mocking at a higher level - the IProductRepository. Then you're not hitting the database at all.
If you want to make sure that your objects actually get persisted to the database, then you should be hitting the DbContext and don't want to mock that part after all.
Personally, I consider both of those scenarios to be different - and equally important - and I write separate tests for each of them: one to test that my application does what it's supposed to do, and another to test that the database interaction works.
I guess your current code looks something like this (I put in the interface):
public class EFProductRepository : IProductRepository {
private IEFDbContext _context;
// constructor
public EFProductRepository(IEFDbContext context) {
_context = context;
}
public IQueryable<Product> Products {
get { return _context.Products; }
}
public void SaveProduct(Product product) {
if (product.ProductID == 0) {
_context.Products.Add(product);
} else {
_context.Entry(product).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
**_context.SaveChanges();**
}
public void DeleteProduct(Product product) {
_context.Products.Remove(product);
**_context.SaveChanges();**
}
}
public class EFDbContext : DbContext, IEFDbContext {
public DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
public interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
}
The problem is EFProductRepository now expects an object implementing the IEFDbContext interface, but this interface does not define the SaveChanges method used at the lines I put between the asteriskes so the compiler starts complaining.
Defining the SaveChanges method on the IEFDbContext interface solves your problem:
public interface IEFDbContext {
DbSet<Product> Products { get; set; }
void SaveChanges();
}