How do I get the strongly-typed value of an OutArgument in code? - workflow-foundation-4

Given an Activity (created via the designer) that has several OutArgument properties, is it possible to get their strongly-typed value from a property after invoking the workflow?
The code looks like this:
// generated class
public partial class ActivityFoo : System.Activities.Activity....
{
....
public System.Activities.OutArgument<decimal> Bar { ... }
public System.Activities.OutArgument<string> Baz { ... }
}
// my class
var activity = new ActivityFoo();
var result = WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(activity);
decimal d = activity.Bar.Get(?)
string s = activity.Baz.Get(?)
The T Get() method on OutArgument<T> that requires an ActivityContext which I'm not sure how to obtain in code.
I also realize it's possible to get the un-typed values from result["Bar"] and result["Baz"] and cast them, but I'm hoping there's another way.
Updated to make it clear there are multiple Out values, although the question would still apply even if there was only one.

If you look at workflows as code, an Activity is no more than a method that receives input arguments and (potentially) returns output arguments.
It happens that Activities allows one to return multiple output arguments, something that C# methods, for example, don't (actually that's about to change with C# 7 and tuples).
That's why you've an WorkflowInvoker.Invoke() overload which returns a Dictionary<string, object> because the framework obviously doesn't know what\how many\of what type output arguments you have.
Bottom line, the only way for you to do it fully strong-typed is exactly the same way you would be doing on a normal C# method - return one OutArgument of a custom type:
public class ActivityFooOutput
{
public decimal Bar { get; set }
public decimal Baz { get; set; }
}
// generated class
public partial class ActivityFoo : System.Activities.Activity....
{
public System.Activities.OutArgument<ActivityFooOutput> Result { ... }
}
// everything's strongly-typed from here on
var result = WorkflowInvoker.Invoke<ActivityFooOutput>(activity);
decimal d = result.Bar;
string s result.Baz;
Actually, if you don't want to create a custom type for it, you can use said tuples:
// generated
public System.Activities.OutArgument<Tuple<decimal, string>> Result { ... }
// everything's strongly-typed from here on
var result = WorkflowInvoker.Invoke<Tuple<decimal, string>>(activity);
decimal d = result.Item1;
string s result.Item2;
Being the first option obviously more scalable and verbose.

Related

How to make a field set-able only inside extension method

Hello i want to be able to set the a of a field of an object only in an extension method. I would want that this field to either be completelely private , or be just get-able from outside:
public class Myclass
{
private int Value{get;set;}
}
public static class Ext
{
public Myclass SetValue(this Myclass obj,int val)
{
this.obj.Value=val;
return obj;
}
}
As you can see in the above example , i have to declare Value public to be able to access it inside the extension , i would be ok with that if i could make the variable only get-ablefrom outside.
I need this functionality because i want to develop something like a fluent api , where you can only set some variables using the extension.
ex:
a=new Myclass();
a.SetValue1(1).SetValue2(2);//--some code //--a.SetValue3(3);
It sounds like you're using the wrong tool for the job, extension methods don't have access non-public members.
The behavior you want is restricted to instance methods or properties. My recommendation is to add an instance method to the class.
If that doesn't persuade you, then you can instead use reflection to update the private instance variable:
public static class Ext
{
public Myclass SetValue(this Myclass obj,int val)
{
var myType = typeof(Myclass);
var myField = myType.GetField("Value", BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance);
myField.SetValue(obj, val);
return obj;
}
}
Please note that this has the following gotchas:
There are no compile time checks to save you if you decide to rename the field Value. (though unit tests can protect you)
Reflection is typically much slower than regular instance methods. (though performance may not matter if this method isn't called frequently)
you want it to do it with extension method but you cannot in this case.
Your best option is
public class Myclass
{
public int Value{get; private set;}
public Myclass SetValue(int val)
{
this.Value=val;
return obj;
}
}

Spring MVC #Validation with Marker Interface in Generic Controller Method

I have a Spring MVC survey application where the Controller method called by each form POST is virtually identical:
#PostMapping("/1")
public String processGroupOne (
Model model,
#ModelAttribute("pageNum") int pageNum,
#ModelAttribute(GlobalControllerAdvice.SESSION_ATTRIBUTE_NAME) #Validated(SurveyGroupOne.class) SurveyCommand surveyCommand,
BindingResult result) {
if (result.hasErrors()) {
LOG.debug(result.getAllErrors().toString());
model.addAttribute("pageNum", pageNum);
return "survey/page".concat(Integer.toString(pageNum));
}
pageNum++;
model.addAttribute("pageNum", pageNum);
return "redirect:/survey/".concat(Integer.toString(pageNum));
}
The only difference is what part of the SurveyCommand object is validated at each stop along the way. This is designated by the marker interface passed to the #Validated() annotation. The marker interfaces (SurveyGroupOne, SurveyGroupTwo, etc) are just that, markers:
public interface SurveyGroupOne {}
public interface SurveyGroupTwo {}
...
and they are applied to properties of objects in the SurveyCommand object:
public class Person {
#NotBlank(groups = {
SurveyGroupTwo.class,
SurveyGroupThree.class})
private String firstName;
#NotBlank(groups = {
SurveyGroupTwo.class,
SurveyGroupThree.class})
private String lastName;
...
}
My question: how can I make the method generic and still use the marker interface specific to the page being processed? Something like this:
#PostMapping("/{pageNum}")
public String processGroupOne (
Model model,
#PathVariable("pageNum") int pageNum,
#ModelAttribute(GlobalControllerAdvice.SESSION_ATTRIBUTE_NAME)
#Validated(__what goes here??__) SurveyCommand surveyCommand,
BindingResult result) {
if (result.hasErrors()) {
LOG.debug(result.getAllErrors().toString());
model.addAttribute("pageNum", pageNum);
return "survey/page".concat(Integer.toString(pageNum));
}
pageNum++;
model.addAttribute("pageNum", pageNum);
return "redirect:/survey/".concat(Integer.toString(pageNum));
}
How can I pass the proper marker interface to #Validated based solely on the pageNum #PathVariable (or any other parameter)?
Because #Validated is an annotation, it requires its arguments to be available during compilation and hence static. You can still use it but in this case you will have N methods, where N is a number of steps. To distinguish one step from another you can use params argument of #PostMapping annotation.
There is also another way where you need to inject Validator to the controller and invoke it directly with an appropriate group that you need.

Why is my abstract JSON object not being parsed?

I just spent a long time trying to work this one out, so I'm posting here in case anyone else makes the same mistake as me.
So, to replicate the situation, I just had a few classes with basic inheritance:
public abstract class Foo
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class Bar : Foo
{
public int SomethingSpecial { get; set; }
}
public class Baz : Foo
{
public string SomethingMundane { get; set; }
}
Now, I want to be able to take a json string, and parse back a concrete implementation of Foo, without knowing beforehand which type the json represents. JSON.Net handles this, by using a $type variable to look up the type of the object:
{
"$type": "MyNamespace.Bar",
"Name": "Resources",
"SomethingSpecial": 42
}
When deserializing the object, you may want to specify the type handling options, and a custom binder, in the JsonSerializerSettings, but that's optional.
The problem I ran into was that when posting the json from a web client, the object was not being deserialized, instead either throwing an exception, or in the case of a POST parameter in ASP.Net, the value was just coming in as null.
The problem here is that Newtonsoft.Json (at least, the version I'm using - 9.0.1) expects the $type element to be the first element of the object, and will ignore it when it is in any other position. So the following json, while technically equivalent to the json in the question, will not work:
{
"Name": "Resources",
"$type": "MyNamespace.Bar",
"SomethingSpecial": 42
}
There is a setting for this, although it may have a performance impact:
new JsonSerializerSettings
{
// $type no longer needs to be first
MetadataPropertyHandling = MetadataPropertyHandling.ReadAhead
}
It's worth noting that if you're using JavaScript's JSON.stringify function, properties are generally written out in the order they were first assigned to the object, so you could also make sure the first thing you do is assign $type.

WCF DataContract with custom List Attribute

I have a WCF webservice, that exposes these classes:
[DataContract]
public class TemplatesFormat
{
List<DynAttribute> _dynsattributes = new List<DynAttribute>();
[DataMember]
public List<DynAttribute> DynsAttributes
{
get { return _dynsattributes; }
set { _dynsattributes = value; }
}
}
[DataContract]
public class DynAttribute
{
string _key = "";
string _val = "";
[DataMember]
public string Key
{
get { return _key; }
set { _key = value; }
}
[DataMember]
public string Value
{
get { return _val; }
set { _val = value; }
}
}
Basically, 2 classes. DynAttribute with 2 string attributes and TemplatesFormat, with an attribute that is a List of DynAttribute class.
So far, so good.
But, when I reference the web service from an ASP.NET web page and try to use the TemplatesFormat, I can't see the List attribute.
I mean, I actually "see" it, but it is not a list (does not contain an "Add()") and I don't know how to use it.
I think I am missing something related with de [DataContrat] and the fact that it is a custom type, since, I don't have the same problem with DynAttribute class (I see the Key and Value attributes because they are strings) but, I can't get it right for the List...
Any idea???
When you add reference to wcf service you need to change Collection Type to Generic List.
Please see my post wcf-proxy-returning-array-instead-of-list-even-though-collection-type-generic for more details and snipp picture.
WCF is meant to support consumption by many other platforms. Because List<DynAttribute> is not a primitive type, it is likely converting it to DynAttribute[].
In your consuming application. Try taking your variable and seeing if you can .ToList() it to turn it back into the List<DynAttribute> you're expecting.

ASP.NET MVC - Posting a form with custom fields of different data types

In my ASP.NET MVC 2 web application, I allow users to create custom input fields of different data types to extend our basic input form. While tricky, building the input form from a collection of custom fields is straight-forward enough.
However, I'm now to the point where I want to handle the posting of this form and I'm not certain what the best way to handle this would be. Normally, we'd use strongly-typed input models that get bound from the various statically-typed inputs available on the form. However, I'm at a loss for how to do this with a variable number of input fields that represent different data types.
A representative input form might look something like:
My date field: [ date time input
control ]
My text field: [ text input
field ]
My file field: [ file upload
control ]
My number field: [ numerical input control ]
My text field 2: [text input field ]
etc...
Ideas I've thought about are:
Sending everything as strings (except for the file inputs, which would need to be handled specially).
Using a model with an "object" property and attempting to bind to that (if this is even possible).
Sending a json request to my controller with the data encoded properly and attempting to parse that.
Manually processing the form collection in my controller post action - certainly an option, but I'd love to avoid this.
Has anyone tackled an issue like this before? If so, how did you solve it?
Update:
My "base" form is handled on another input area all together, so a solution doesn't need to account for any sort of inheritence magic for this. I'm just interested in handling the custom fields on this interface, not my "base" ones.
Update 2:
Thank you to ARM and smartcaveman; both of you provided good guidance for how this could be done. I will update this question with my final solution once its been implemented.
This is how I would begin to approach the issue. A custom model binder would be pretty easy to build based on the FormKey property (which could be determined by the index and/or label, depending).
public class CustomFormModel
{
public string FormId { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
public CustomFieldModel[] Fields { get; set; }
}
public class CustomFieldModel
{
public DataType DateType { get; set; } // System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations
public string FormKey { get; set; }
public string Label { get; set; }
public object Value { get; set; }
}
public class CustomFieldModel<T> : CustomFieldModel
{
public new T Value { get; set; }
}
Also, I noticed one of the comments below had a filtered model binder system. Jimmy Bogard from Automapper made a really helpful post about this method at http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/03/17/a-better-model-binder.aspx , and later revised in, http://www.lostechies.com/blogs/jimmy_bogard/archive/2009/11/19/a-better-model-binder-addendum.aspx . It has been very helpful for me in building custom model binders.
Update
I realized that I misinterpreted the question, and that he was specifically asking how to handle posting of the form "with a variable number of input fields that represent different data types". I think the best way to do this is to use a structure similar to above but leverage the Composite Pattern. Basically, you will need to create an interface like IFormComponent and implement it for each datatype that would be represented. I wrote and commented an example interface to help explain how this would be accomplished:
public interface IFormComponent
{
// the id on the html form field. In the case of a composite Id, that doesn't have a corresponding
// field you should still use something consistent, since it will be helpful for model binding
// (For example, a CompositeDateField appearing as the third field in the form should have an id
// something like "frmId_3_date" and its child fields would be "frmId_3_date_day", "frmId_3_date_month",
// and "frmId_3_date_year".
string FieldId { get; }
// the human readable field label
string Label { get; }
// some functionality may require knowledge of the
// Parent component. For example, a DayField with a value of "30"
// would need to ask its Parent, a CompositeDateField
// for its MonthField's value in order to validate
// that the month is not "February"
IFormComponent Parent { get; }
// Gets any child components or null if the
// component is a leaf component (has no children).
IList<IFormComponent> GetChildren();
// For leaf components, this method should accept the AttemptedValue from the value provider
// during Model Binding, and create the appropriate value.
// For composites, the input should be delimited in someway, and this method should parse the
// string to create the child components.
void BindTo(string value);
// This method should parse the Children or Underlying value to the
// default used by your business models. (e.g. a CompositeDateField would
// return a DateTime. You can get type safety by creating a FormComponent<TValue>
// which would help to avoid issues in binding.
object GetValue();
// This method would render the field to the http response stream.
// This makes it easy to render the forms simply by looping through
// the array. Implementations could extend this for using an injected
// formatting
void Render(TextWriter writer);
}
I am assuming that the custom forms can be accessed via some sort of id which can be contained as a form parameter. With that assumption, the model binder and provider could look something like this.
public interface IForm : IFormComponent
{
Guid FormId { get; }
void Add(IFormComponent component);
}
public interface IFormRepository
{
IForm GetForm(Guid id);
}
public class CustomFormModelBinder : IModelBinder
{
private readonly IFormRepository _repository;
public object BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
ValueProviderResult result;
if(bindingContext.ValueProvider.TryGetValue("_customFormId", out result))
{
var form = _repository.GetForm(new Guid(result.AttemptedValue));
var fields = form.GetChildren();
// loop through the fields and bind their values
return form;
}
throw new Exception("Form ID not found.");
}
}
Obviously, all the code here is just to get the point across, and would need to be completed and cleaned up for actual use. Also, even if completed this would only bind to an implementation of the IForm interface, not a strongly typed business object. (It wouldn't be a huge step to convert it to a dictionary and build a strongly typed proxy using the Castle DictionaryAdapter, but since your users are dynamically creating the forms on the site, there is probably no strongly typed model in your solution and this is irrelevant). Hope this helps more.
Take a peek at what I did here: MVC2 Action to handle multiple models and see if can get you on the right track.
If you use a FormCollection as one of your parameters to your action, you can then go thru that form collection looking for bits of data here or there in order to bind those values to whatever an then save the data. You are most likely going to need to take advantage of both strategy and command patterns to get this to work.
Best of luck, feel free to ask follow-up questions.
Edit:
Your method which does the work should look something like this:
private/public void SaveCustomFields(var formId, FormCollection collection) //var as I don't know what type you are using to Id the form.
{
var binders = this.binders.select(b => b.CanHandle(collection)); //I used IOC to get my list of IBinder objects
// Method 1:
binders.ForEach(b => b.Save(formId, collection)); //This is the execution implementation.
// Method 2:
var commands = binders.Select(b => b.Command(formId, collection));
commands.ForEach(c => c.Execute());
}
public DateBinder : IBinder //Example binder
{
public bool CanHandle(FormCollection collection)
{
return (null != collection["MyDateField"]); //Whatever the name of this field is.
}
//Method 1
public void Save(var formId, FormCollection collection)
{
var value = DateTime.Parse(collection["MyDateField"]);
this.someLogic.Save(formId, value); //Save the value with the formId, or however you wish to save it.
}
//Method 2
public Command Command(var formId, FormCollection collection)
{
//I haven't done command pattern before so I'm not sure exactly what to do here.
//Sorry that I can't help further than that.
}
}
I would think one of the best options is to create a custom model binder, which makes it possible to have custom logic behind the scenes and still very customizable code behind.
Maybe these articles can help you:
http://www.gregshackles.com/2010/03/templated-helpers-and-custom-model-binders-in-asp-net-mvc-2/
http://www.singingeels.com/Articles/Model_Binders_in_ASPNET_MVC.aspx
More specifically I would probably take as the controller argument a custom class with all "base" properties included. The class could then for example include a dictionary linking the name of each field to either just an object or an interface which you implement once for each data-type making it simple to process the data later.
/Victor

Resources