I'm using NUnit 3 to do a global setup, which creates a local database needed to run several of my service tests, which looks like this:
[SetUpFixture]
public class FixtureSetup
{
private MobileServiceClient _client;
private SyncService _syncService;
[OneTimeSetUp]
public void GlobalSetup()
{
_client = Substitute.For<MobileServiceClient>(Settings.SyncUrl);
_syncService = Substitute.For<SyncService>(_client);
}
[OneTimeTearDown]
public void GlobalTeardown()
{
_syncService = null;
_client.Dispose();
}
}
Settings.SyncUrl contains the URL to Azure to which the Azure App Services SDK will by syncing eventually, and is not relevant to this question.
The one-time setup, simply constructs a new instance of the MobileServiceClient and passes that instance to my SyncService class, to construct the local store, which looks like this:
public class SyncService : ISyncService
{
private readonly IMobileServiceClient _client;
private MobileServiceSQLiteStore Store { get; }
public SyncService(IMobileServiceClient client)
{
_client = client;
Store = new MobileServiceSQLiteStore(Settings.SyncDb);
Store.DefineTable<User>();
_client.SyncContext.InitializeAsync(Store);
}
public async Task<List<TTable>> All<TTable>()
{
var table = await _client.GetSyncTable<TTable>().ToListAsync();
return table;
}
public async Task<TTable> Insert<TTable>(TTable table)
{
await _client.GetSyncTable<TTable>().InsertAsync(table);
return table;
}
public async Task<List<TTable>> Search<TTable>(Expression<Func<TTable, bool>> predicate)
{
var table = await _client.GetSyncTable<TTable>().Where(predicate).ToListAsync();
return table;
}
}
Settings.SyncDb simply points to the name of the db, called localstorage.db, and if on a mobile device, will store this in the application's file repository, on Windows or Mac, it will store it under the user's profile folder. Adding this just for reference.
My problem is that the global setup creates the localstorage.db correctly, but by the time the unit test runs, it cannot access the localstorage.db, because it's seemingly still in use by the global setup method.
I thought that reinstantiating the MobileServiceClient in the test class would resolve this, but it does not seem to do so. Is there a way that I can release the handle on the db, before hitting the unit test?
This is not an issue in development, as I can run the unit tests again after the first fail, but VSTS builds fail the test due to this reason.
Thanks in advance.
Related
I'm trying to do integration testing against a MediatR Command whose handler depends on an IRequestClient injected into its constructor.
public class SayHelloCommand : IRequest<string>
{
}
public class SayHelloCommandHandler : IRequestHandler<SayHelloCommand, string>
{
private readonly IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult> _profileClient;
public SayHelloCommandHandler(IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult> profileClient)
{
_profileClient = profileClient;
}
public async Task<string> Handle(SayHelloCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var profile = (await _profileClient.GetResponse<IGetProfileMessageResult>(new {ProfileId = 1})).Message;
return $"Hello {profile.FirstName}";
}
}
I've setup my test suite to use the InMemoryMassTransit but whenever I run my test it times out when it reaches the call using the IRequestClient<>. I've also tried to moq the IRequestClient to return a default response like this -
[Test]
public async Task ShouldSayHello()
{
var mockRequestClient = new Mock<IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult>>();
mockRequestClient.Setup(x => x.GetResponse<IGetProfileMessageResult>(It.IsAny<Object>(), default, default)
.Result.Message).Returns(new GetProfileMessageResult
{
FirstName = "John"
});
serviceCollection.Add(new ServiceDescriptor(typeof(IRequestClient<IGetProfileMessageResult>), mockRequestClient.Object));
var result = await SendAsync(command);
result.Status.Should().BeFalse();
result.Message.Should().Contain("John");
}
but this still times out.
Is there a way I can set up the InMemoryMassTransit to return a default response when the requestclient is called?
You could use the in-memory test harness to setup a simple consumer that would respond to the request, instead of trying to mock IRequestClient. Though you should be able to mock it if you want, I just don’t know the syntax to properly configure your mock framework.
There are many samples using the test harness available, as well as all of the MassTransit unit tests.
I have a very basic http-POST triggered api which creates a TelemetryClient. I needed to provide a custom property in this telemetry for each individual request, so I implemented a TelemtryProcessor.
However, when subsequent POST requests are handled and a new TelemetryClient is created that seems to interfere with the first request. I end up seeing maybe a dozen or so entries in App Insights containing the first customPropertyId, and close to 500 for the second, when in reality the number should be split evenly. It seems as though the creation of the 2nd TelemetryClient somehow interferes with the first.
Basic code is below, if anyone has any insight (no pun intended) as to why this might occur, I would greatly appreciate it.
ApiController which handles the POST request:
public class TestApiController : ApiController
{
public HttpResponseMessage Post([FromBody]RequestInput request)
{
try
{
Task.Run(() => ProcessRequest(request));
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK);
}
catch (Exception)
{
return Request.CreateErrorResponse(HttpStatusCode.InternalServerError, Constants.GenericErrorMessage);
}
}
private async void ProcessRequest(RequestInput request)
{
string customPropertyId = request.customPropertyId;
//trace handler creates the TelemetryClient for custom property
CustomTelemetryProcessor handler = new CustomTelemetryProcessor(customPropertyId);
//etc.....
}
}
CustomTelemetryProcessor which creates the TelemetryClient:
public class CustomTelemetryProcessor
{
private readonly string _customPropertyId;
private readonly TelemetryClient _telemetryClient;
public CustomTelemetryProcessor(string customPropertyId)
{
_customPropertyId = customPropertyId;
var builder = TelemetryConfiguration.Active.TelemetryProcessorChainBuilder;
builder.Use((next) => new TelemetryProcessor(next, _customPropertyId));
builder.Build();
_telemetryClient = new TelemetryClient();
}
}
TelemetryProcessor:
public class TelemetryProcessor : ITelemetryProcessor
{
private string CustomPropertyId { get; }
private ITelemetryProcessor Next { get; set; }
// Link processors to each other in a chain.
public TelemetryProcessor(ITelemetryProcessor next, string customPropertyId)
{
CustomPropertyId = customPropertyId;
Next = next;
}
public void Process(ITelemetry item)
{
if (!item.Context.Properties.ContainsKey("CustomPropertyId"))
{
item.Context.Properties.Add("CustomPropertyId", CustomPropertyId);
}
else
{
item.Context.Properties["CustomPropertyId"] = CustomPropertyId;
}
Next.Process(item);
}
}
It's better to avoid creating Telemetry Client per each request, isntead re-use single static Telemetry Client instance. Telemetry Processors and/or Telemetry Initializers should also typically be registered only once for the telemetry pipeline and not for every request. TelemetryConfiguration.Active is static and by adding new Processor with each request the queue of processor only grows.
The appropriate setup would be to add Telemetry Initializer (Telemetry Processors are typically used for filtering and Initializers for data enrichment) once into the telemetry pipeline, e.g. though adding an entry to ApplicationInsights.config file (if present) or via code on TelemetryConfiguration.Active somewhere in global.asax, e.g. Application_Start:
TelemetryConfiguration.Active.TelemetryInitializers.Add(new MyTelemetryInitializer());
Initializers are executed in the same context/thread where Track..(..) was called / telemetry was created, so they will have access to the thread local storage and or local objects to read parameters/values from.
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;
}
I am actually working in an ASP.Net MVC 4 web application where we are using NInject for dependency injection. We are also using UnitOfWork and Repositories based on Entity framework.
We would like to use Quartz.net in our application to start some custom job periodically. I would like that NInject bind automatically the services that we need in our job.
It could be something like this:
public class DispatchingJob : IJob
{
private readonly IDispatchingManagementService _dispatchingManagementService;
public DispatchingJob(IDispatchingManagementService dispatchingManagementService )
{
_dispatchingManagementService = dispatchingManagementService ;
}
public void Execute(IJobExecutionContext context)
{
LogManager.Instance.Info(string.Format("Dispatching job started at: {0}", DateTime.Now));
_dispatchingManagementService.DispatchAtomicChecks();
LogManager.Instance.Info(string.Format("Dispatching job ended at: {0}", DateTime.Now));
}
}
So far, in our NInjectWebCommon binding is configured like this (using request scope):
kernel.Bind<IDispatchingManagementService>().To<DispatchingManagementService>();
Is it possible to inject the correct implementation into our custom job using NInject ? and how to do it ? I have read already few posts on stack overflow, however i need some advises and some example using NInject.
Use a JobFactory in your Quartz schedule, and resolve your job instance there.
So, in your NInject config set up the job (I'm guessing at the correct NInject syntax here)
// Assuming you only have one IJob
kernel.Bind<IJob>().To<DispatchingJob>();
Then, create a JobFactory: [edit: this is a modified version of #BatteryBackupUnit's answer here]
public class NInjectJobFactory : IJobFactory
{
private readonly IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot;
public NinjectJobFactory(IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot)
{
this.resolutionRoot = resolutionRoot;
}
public IJob NewJob(TriggerFiredBundle bundle, IScheduler scheduler)
{
// If you have multiple jobs, specify the name as
// bundle.JobDetail.JobType.Name, or pass the type, whatever
// NInject wants..
return (IJob)this.resolutionRoot.Get<IJob>();
}
public void ReturnJob(IJob job)
{
this.resolutionRoot.Release(job);
}
}
Then, when you create the scheduler, assign the JobFactory to it:
private IScheduler GetSchedule(IResolutionRoot root)
{
var schedule = new StdSchedulerFactory().GetScheduler();
schedule.JobFactory = new NInjectJobFactory(root);
return schedule;
}
Quartz will then use the JobFactory to create the job, and NInject will resolve the dependencies for you.
Regarding scoping of the IUnitOfWork, as per a comment of the answer i linked, you can do
// default for web requests
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<UnitOfWork>()
.InRequestScope();
// fall back to `InCallScope()` when there's no web request.
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<UnitOfWork>()
.When(x => HttpContext.Current == null)
.InCallScope();
There's only one caveat that you should be aware of:
With incorrect usage of async in a web request, you may mistakenly be resolving a IUnitOfWork in a worker thread where HttpContext.Current is null. Now without the fallback binding, this would fail with an exception which would show you that you've done something wrong. With the fallback binding however, the issue may present itself in an obscured way. That is, it may work sometimes, but sometimes not. This is because there will be two (or even more) IUnitOfWork instances for the same request.
To remedy this, we can make the binding more specific. For this, we need some parameter to tell us to use another than InRequestScope(). Have a look at:
public class NonRequestScopedParameter : Ninject.Parameters.IParameter
{
public bool Equals(IParameter other)
{
if (other == null)
{
return false;
}
return other is NonRequestScopedParameter;
}
public object GetValue(IContext context, ITarget target)
{
throw new NotSupportedException("this parameter does not provide a value");
}
public string Name
{
get { return typeof(NonRequestScopedParameter).Name; }
}
// this is very important
public bool ShouldInherit
{
get { return true; }
}
}
now adapt the job factory as follows:
public class NInjectJobFactory : IJobFactory
{
private readonly IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot;
public NinjectJobFactory(IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot)
{
this.resolutionRoot = resolutionRoot;
}
public IJob NewJob(TriggerFiredBundle bundle, IScheduler scheduler)
{
return (IJob) this.resolutionRoot.Get(
bundle.JobDetail.JobType,
new NonrequestScopedParameter()); // parameter goes here
}
public void ReturnJob(IJob job)
{
this.resolutionRoot.Release(job);
}
}
and adapt the IUnitOfWork bindings:
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<UnitOfWork>()
.InRequestScope();
Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<UnitOfWork>()
.When(x => x.Parameters.OfType<NonRequestScopedParameter>().Any())
.InCallScope();
This way, if you use async wrong, there'll still be an exception, but IUnitOfWork scoping will still work for quartz tasks.
For any users that could be interested, here is the solution that finally worked for me.
I have made it working doing some adjustment to match my project. Please note that in the method NewJob, I have replaced the call to Kernel.Get by _resolutionRoot.Get.
As you can find here:
public class JobFactory : IJobFactory
{
private readonly IResolutionRoot _resolutionRoot;
public JobFactory(IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot)
{
this._resolutionRoot = resolutionRoot;
}
public IJob NewJob(TriggerFiredBundle bundle, IScheduler scheduler)
{
try
{
return (IJob)_resolutionRoot.Get(
bundle.JobDetail.JobType, new NonRequestScopedParameter()); // parameter goes here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LogManager.Instance.Info(string.Format("Exception raised in JobFactory"));
}
}
public void ReturnJob(IJob job)
{
}
}
And here is the call schedule my job:
public static void RegisterScheduler(IKernel kernel)
{
try
{
var scheduler = new StdSchedulerFactory().GetScheduler();
scheduler.JobFactory = new JobFactory(kernel);
....
}
}
Thank you very much for your help
Thanks so much for your response. I have implemented something like that and the binding is working :):
public IJob NewJob(TriggerFiredBundle bundle, IScheduler scheduler)
{
var resolver = DependencyResolver.Current;
var myJob = (IJob)resolver.GetService(typeof(IJob));
return myJob;
}
As I told before I am using in my project a service and unit of work (based on EF) that are both injected with NInject.
public class DispatchingManagementService : IDispatchingManagementService
{
private readonly IUnitOfWork _unitOfWork;
public DispatchingManagementService(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
}
}
Please find here how I am binding the implementations:
kernel.Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<EfUnitOfWork>()
kernel.Bind<IDispatchingManagementService>().To<DispatchingManagementService>();
kernel.Bind<IJob>().To<DispatchingJob>();
To resume, the binding of IUnitOfWork is done for:
- Eevery time a new request is coming to my application ASP.Net MVC: Request scope
- Every time I am running the job: InCallScope
What are the best practices according to the behavior of EF ? I have find information to use CallInScope. Is it possible to tell NInject to get a scope ByRequest everytime a new request is coming to the application, and a InCallScope everytime my job is running ? How to do that ?
Thank you very much for your help
I'm starting a web application that contains the following projects:
Booking.Web
Booking.Services
Booking.DataObjects
Booking.Data
I'm using the repository pattern in my data project only. All services will be the same, no matter what happens. However, if a customer wants to use Access, it will use a different data repository than if the customer wants to use SQL Server.
I have StructureMap, and want to be able to do the following:
Web project is unaffected. It's a web forms application that will only know about the services project and the dataobjects project.
When a service is called, it will use StructureMap (by looking up the bootstrapper.cs file) to see which data repository to use.
An example of a services class is the error logging class:
public class ErrorLog : IErrorLog
{
ILogging logger;
public ErrorLog()
{
}
public ErrorLog(ILogging logger)
{
this.logger = logger;
}
public void AddToLog(string errorMessage)
{
try
{
AddToDatabaseLog(errorMessage);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
AddToFileLog(ex.Message);
}
finally
{
AddToFileLog(errorMessage);
}
}
private void AddToDatabaseLog(string errorMessage)
{
ErrorObject error =
new ErrorObject
{
ErrorDateTime = DateTime.Now,
ErrorMessage = errorMessage
};
logger.Insert(error);
}
private void AddToFileLog(string errorMessage)
{
// TODO: Take this value from the web.config instead of hard coding it
TextWriter writer = new StreamWriter(#"E:\Work\Booking\Booking\Booking.Web\Logs\ErrorLog.txt", true);
writer.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString() + " ---------- " + errorMessage);
writer.Close();
}
}
I want to be able to call this service from my web project, without defining which repository to use for the data access. My boostrapper.cs file in the services project is defined as:
public class Bootstrapper
{
public static void ConfigureStructureMap()
{
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x =>
{
x.AddRegistry(new ServiceRegistry());
}
);
}
public class ServiceRegistry : Registry
{
protected override void configure()
{
ForRequestedType<IErrorLog>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<Booking.Services.Logging.ErrorLog>();
ForRequestedType<ILogging>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SqlServerLoggingProvider>();
}
}
}
What else do I need to get this to work? When I defined a test, the ILogger object was null.
Perhaps some details on how you are calling this code from a test would be useful.
My understanding is that you need to ensure that the ConfigureStructureMap call has been made early in the applications life (e.g. in the Global.asax in a web project).
After that you would be calling for instances of IErrorLog using something like:
IErrorLog log = StructureMap.ObjectFactory.GetNamedInstance<IErrorLog>();