Does MOQ give access to Castle's DynamicProxy generation? Or are there configurable static methods or something in the Castle namespace that would allow me to tune MOQ's proxy gen behavior?
Some Background
I am Mocking a WCF Service endpoint (IWhatever). WCF automatically adds Async call back options for methods (e.g. IWhatever.DoWork() is also realized as IWhatever.DoWorkAsync()).
I'm looking to use the Mock<IWhatever> object while self-hosting this service mock'd; basically spoof this external web service to my system. However, when [self-hosted] WCF tries to create a DoWorkAsync() method; it already exists... which ultimately throws errors when opening the self-hosted/mock'd IWhatever endpoint. ((NOTE: I don't have access to original contract to use directly)).
Sooo.. looks like Castle DynamicProxy allows for one to define which methods should be generated (see: http://kozmic.net/2009/01/17/castle-dynamic-proxy-tutorial-part-iii-selecting-which-methods-to/). I was thinking I would use to not intercept calls on methods ending with "[...]Async". However I don't see where I would add this customization rule in the proxy generation within MOQ; hence my question.
Related
I have a class that calls an external service which requires a token, and this is injected using the Settings class.
Now, depending on the request, I need to use one of two tokens.
I would like to use middleware to look at the incoming request to then configure what is injected into my service, but not sure this is possible?
Can I configure the DI from middleware?
I'm not sure that you can configure Dependency Injection from within middleware because DI is done (if you're using the DI system supplied with .NET Core) during the Container setup faze (take a look at your startup.cs class).
I have a class that calls an external service which requires a token, and this is injected using the Settings class.
Now, depending on the request, I need to use one of two tokens
Could you not get both tokens and pass them into your middleware's constructor? I did something similar (passing a configuration object into the middleware constructor) when I was creating my OWASP secure headers middleware (it's part two in a now finished multipart series).
Could you take in the config and switch on something found within the request during your middleware's Invoke task?
I have 1 Site (MySite.com) / 1 Web Service (WebService.MySite.Com) and one Common Library (LibCommon)
The common Library Contains a Model e.g. UserModel = LibCommon.UserModel
The web service has a method 'Void CheckUser(LibCommon.UserModel model)'
However when I add the 'WebService' reference to 'MySite.com' the method changes so that it looks like 'Void CheckUser(WebService.MySite.Com.UserModel model)'
So I think fair enough I can just cast one object to the other as they are identical however .NET Says I cannot do this?
Is there a work around for this?
Cheers,
Note this is for WCF, and not ASMX web services:
You can't directly cast the original data class to the proxied class generated by the WCF service reference wizard. However, you can reuse the original data class in the client:
Add the library reference containing the transfer objects (i.e. LibCommon) as a reference to both the Service (WebService) and the Client (Mysite.com). When adding the service reference on the client, choose the advanced tab and then select Reuse types in referenced assemblies. This will then reuse the common data transfer classes, instead of duplicating the types with proxies.
Note however that by eliminating the proxied data class, you are introducing direct coupling between client and server - you should do this only if you have control over both client and server w.r.t. version control issues etc (e.g. able to deploy new versions of both client and server simultaneously)
As an aside, it is also possible to eliminate the shared service interface as well, by moving the server side Service contract interface into a separate, common assembly and then using a technique such as this or this.
I have a solution with several projects (MyApp.Data, MyApp.BLL, MyApp.Web). I register types in Global.asax file in MyApp.Web (main web application):
builder.RegisterType<SomeService1>().As<ISomeService1>().InstancePerHttpRequest();
builder.RegisterType<SomeService2>().As<ISomeService2>().InstancePerHttpRequest();
//...etc
And I wonder whether it's a bad practice to register types and their scope using attributes in the other assemblies (for example, in MyApp.BLL). See below:
[Dependency(typeof(ISomeService1), ComponentLifeStyle.Transient)]
public class SomeService1 : ISomeService1
{
//methods and properties go here
}
Using local attributes or other ways to indicate wiring for a DI Container tightly couples the service to the DI Container, so I don't think that's a good idea.
Additionally, it may constrain your future options. If, for example, you specify the lifestyle scope, you can't reuse the service with a different scope.
In general, you should compose the application in a Composition Root (global.asax), which gives you a single location with a clearly defined responsibility where all classes are composed.
That would be much more manageable and maintainable that spreading the configuration data all over your classes.
As your question implies, it makes some sense to delegate responsibility for registration to the assembly that knows what needs to be registered. For example, if you
use the SolrNet library, it provides a method that performs component registration, to encapsulate the knowledge of what needs to be registered and to spare the library's consumer from having to learn all about the library before getting started.
However, there is a potential issue with this approach. Would your registration requirements change if you used the dependent assemblies in other applications? For example, would it make sense to register something as ComponentLifeStyle.HttpRequestScoped and then use it in a non-Web application? By delegating registration to the dependency, you are coupling the dependency to its consumer's registration requirements (and to its choice of IoC container).
Autofac (I can't speak for other IoC containers) provides a way round this. It enables you to override registrations so that the most recently registered component is used when a service is resolved. This means that you can call a library's registration method and then register your own services to override the defaults.
There is another problem with your proposed attribute-based registration - it doesn't enable you to specify a lambda expression as a component creator. How would you implement a registration like this with attributes?
builder.Register(c => new A(c.Resolve<B>()));
It might be preferable to define an IRegistrar interface, and then use reflection to search all loaded assemblies for implementations and invoke them. Perhaps something like this:
public interface IRegistrar
{
void RegisterComponents();
}
We need to expose some services (i.e. AddressValidatorService, CustomerFinderService) that currently reside in an ASP.NET application to other applications within our organization. Exposing these services via WCF seems like a natural fit, but I don't see any best-practices for how to pull these common services into a WCF wrapper in such a way that my existing ASP.NET application can continue to use them with minimal code changes and/or awareness that the service they are consuming is no longer in-process.
I'm especially looking for recommendations on how to structure the existing ASP.NET solution and whether to host our new WCF in the same solution or in some new shared WCF solution referenced by both our ASP.NET application and external callers.
Also, is it bad practice to simply promote the DTOs currently only consumed in-process via ASP.NET to full fledged data contracts or is it preferable to create duplicate DTOs that are explicitly decorated with [DataContract]? The latter seems like a maintenance nightmare.
To answer your second question:
Also, is it bad practice to simply promote the DTOs currently only consumed in-process via ASP.NET to full fledged data contracts or is it preferable to create duplicate DTOs that are explicitly decorated with [DataContract]? The latter seems like a maintenance nightmare.
It is considered a bad practice to expose your business model as WCF contracts. So if your DTOs are replicas of your domain model then it would be a strict no-no, because
1. any change in the model would directly effect the contracts and hence all the clients using it
2. you would be exposing your business "know-how" to the outside world.
The latter can tend to get difficult for any evolving system, but then you have various open source tools (like AutoMapper) that ease your mapping nighmares.
You can convert an existing project to WCF, then continue to use it in-process by using a project reference. It can then be consumed by an eternal source using the WCF client. A WCF client converts the class name from ClassName to ClassNameClient when consumed over WCF, but the class will function pretty much the same.
For example:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
obj.DoSomething(withData);
Would become:
MyClassClient obj = new MyClassClient();
obj.DoSomething(withData);
You would publish the WCF project to some endpoint, like address.example.com, then use a service reference to the endpoint to reference the code, like a project reference, in your other projects.
Note that while the externally referencing projects would not be impacted by the change or know that the data is going over the network, if you have chatty calls to the project in question, it will definitely take a performance hit. You may want to consolidate related methods into single methods to save on round-tripping.
If these are exposed as static page services, there's no magic wrapper -- you're going to need to move code to a standalone service implementation class and put a .svc file in front of it. (Or use WCF4 fileless activation, or a service factory, but that's getting a bit away from the core question here.)
If these are exposed as ASMX, you can actually put an ASMX facade in front of a WCF service class and get basic HTTP/XML/ASMX responses as you would from your legacy ASMX webservices. You an expose that same WCF service class through standard WCF configuration for non-legacy consumers.
Finally, you can expose any WCF service as basicHTTP with serviceMetadata + httpGetEnabled, and you'll get a service endpoint usable by legacy consumers of an ASMX service.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms751433.aspx
I have an ASP.NET MVC web app whose controllers use WCF to call into the domain model on a different server. The domain code needs to talk to a database and access to the database server isn't always possible from web servers (depends on the customer site) hence the use of WCF to get to a place where my code is allowed to connect to the database server.
This is configurable so if the controllers are able to access the database server directly then I use local instances of the domain objects rather than use WCF.
Lets say I have a page asking for person details like age, name etc. This is a complex type that is a parameter on my WCF operation like this :
[OperationContract]
string SayHello( Person oPerson);
When I generate the client code (eg; by adding a service reference in my client) I get a separate Person class that fulfills the wcf contract. The client, an MVC web app, can use this client Person class as the view model and all is well. I pass that straight into the WCF client methods and it all works brilliantly.
If my mvc client app is configured to NOT use WCF I have a problem. If I am calling my domain objects directly from the controller (assume I have a domain access factory/provider setup) then I need the original Person class and not the wcf generated Person class. This results in my problem which is that I will have to perform mapping from one object to another if I don't use WCF
The main problem with this is that there are many domain objects that will need to be mapped and errors may be introduced such as new properties forgotten about in future changes
I'm learning and experimenting with WCF and MVC can you help me know what my options are in this scenario? I'm sure there will be an easy way out of this given the extensibility of WCF and MVC
Thanks
It appears that you are not actually trying to use a service-oriented architecture. In this case, you can place the domain objects into a single assembly, and share it between the WCF service and the clients. When creating the clients, use "Add Service Reference", and on the "Advanced" tab, choose "Share Types". Either choose to share all types, or choose the list of assemblies whose types you want to share.
Sound service-oriented-architecture dictates that you use message based communication regardless of whether your service is on another machine, in another process, in another appdomain, or in your appdomain. You can use different endpoints with different bindings to take advantage of the speed of the link (http, tcp, named pipes) based on the location of your service, but the code using that service would remain the same.
This may not be the easiest or least time-consuming answer, but one thing you can do is avoid using the "add service reference" option, and then copy your contract interfaces to your MVC application and initiate the connection to WCF manually without automatically creating a service proxy. This will allow you to use one set of classes for your model objects and you can control explicitly when to use WCF or not.
There's a good series of webcasts on WCF by Michele Leroux Bustamante, and I think in episode 2, she explains how to do exactly this. Check it out here: http://www.dasblonde.net/WCFWebcastSeries.aspx
Hope this helps!
One sound option is that you always use WCF, even if client and server are in the same process, as Aviad points out.
Another option is to define the service contracts on interfaces, and to put these, together with the data contracts into an assembly that is shared between client and server. In the client, don't use svcutil or a service reference; instead, use ClientFactory<T>.
This way, your client code will use the same interfaces and classes as the server.