ASP.NET MVC - Dependency Injection - asp.net

I am going over dependency injection. I have an ASP.NET MVC project where the model is named Customers:
public class Customers
{
public ID get; set;
private Customer customer
public Customers()
{
customer = new Customer();
}
}
Now I am suppose to add classes in order to eliminate the dependency in the above class. For example, Customer is a dependency of the Customers class.
Customers should depend on an abstraction. I created an interface (or abstract class) named IStorageCustomer
public interface IStorageCustomer
{
}
Now I changed the Customers class to the following below:
public class Customers
{
public ID get; set;
private IStorageCustomer customer;
public Customers(IStorageCustomer customer)
{
this.customer = customer;
}
}
I need to know if the dependency has been eliminated in the above class. What else do I need to do? Please help. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

You can install Ninject MVC. (be aware there are different version for each version of MVC)
This is a Nuget which manages the dependency Injection for you.
To make Ninject inject the right class, you should set it up in the NinjectWebCommon file.
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
//all your bindings will be configured here
kerenl.Bind<IStorageCustomer>().To<Costumer>(); //if you want Customer instances to be injected everywhere you expect an IStorageCustomer
}
Also leave a default constructor for the class you want to inject instances into.

Instead of Customer, I will rename it to Person. Now here are the changes that I have so far. This is also including classes that I have just added. The only problem is that person in the Customers model class is inaccessible because it is private and also its type.
public class Customers
{
public int ID { get; set; }
private IStoragePerson person;
public Customers()
{
this.person = LocateCustomer.GetCustomer();
}
}
public class Person : IStoragePerson
{
public string person{ get; set; }
}
Don't know what to add for IStoragePerson
public interface IStoragePerson
{
}
public class LocateCustomer
{
public static IStoragePerson person{ get; set; }
public static IStoragePerson GetCustomer()
{
if(person == null)
{
person = new Person();
}
return person;
}
}

Related

EF Core with CosmosDB: OwnsOne and OwnsMany throw NullReferenceException

I'm working on a new project that uses CosmosDB and Entity Framework Core (via the Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Cosmos NuGet package, version 5.0.7; the project itself is .NET Core 5). I'm new to both, and running into an issue I can't sort out.
In short, I need to save a complex object to the database. It's a big model that will have multiple collections of classes underneath it, each with their own properties and some with collections underneath them as well. I'm trying to configure EF with OwnsOne and OwnsMany to store these child objects underneath the top-level one. The code compiles, and will save to the database so long as all the owned objects are left empty. But whenever I put anything into an owned object, either with OwnsOne or OwnsMany, I get a pair of NullReferenceExceptions.
I've tried to strip my code down to the very basics. Here's how it currently looks.
Owner and owned classes:
public class Questionnaire
{
// Constructors
private Questionnaire() { }
public Questionnaire(Guid id)
{
Test = "Test property.";
TV = new TestQ();
Id = id;
}
public Guid Id { get; set; }
public string Test { get; set; }
public TestQ TV { get; set; }
// Public Methods
public void AddForm(Form f)
{
// not currently using this method
//Forms.Add(f);
}
}
public class TestQ
{
public TestQ()
{
TestValue = "test ownsone value";
}
public string TestValue { get; set; }
}
DbContext:
public class QuestionnaireDbContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<Questionnaire> Questionnaires { get; set; }
public QuestionnaireDbContext(DbContextOptions<QuestionnaireDbContext> options) : base(options) { }
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.HasDefaultContainer(nameof(Questionnaires));
modelBuilder.Entity<Questionnaire>().HasKey(q => q.Id);
modelBuilder.Entity<Questionnaire>().OwnsOne(q => q.TV);
}
}
And the code from the service that calls the dbContext (note that this is based on a generic service that I didn't set up originally). The actual exceptions are thrown here.
public virtual TEntity Add(TEntity entity)
{
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Added;
_context.SaveChanges();
return entity;
}
Ultimately I need this to work with OwnsMany and a collection, but I figured it might be simpler to get it working with OwnsOne first. The key thing to note here is that if I comment out the line
TV = new TestQ();
in the Questionnaire class, the model persists correctly into CosmosDB. It's only when I actually instantiate an owned entity that I get the NullReferenceExceptions.
Any advice would be much appreciated! Thank you!
Well, I'm not sure why this is the case, but the issue turned out to be with how we were adding the document. Using this generic code:
public virtual async Task<TEntity> Add(TEntity entity)
{
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Added;
await _context.SaveChanges();
return entity;
}
was the issue. It works just fine if I use the actual QuestionnaireDbContext class like so:
context.Add(questionnaire);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();

How to specify default property values for owned entity types in Entity Framework Core 2.0?

I have a simple POCO type, say something like
public class OwnedEntity {
public string stringProperty { get; set; }
public decimal decimalProperty { get; set; }
public bool boolProperty { get; set; }
public int intProperty { get; set; }
}
and an actual entity with an OwnedEntity reference
public class SomeEntity {
public string Id { get; set; }
public OwnedEntity OwnedEntity { get; set; }
}
I set up the relationship like described in the documentation using EF Core's Fluent API:
protected override void OnModelCreating (ModelBuilder builder) {
base.OnModelCreating (builder);
builder.Entity<SomeEntity> ().OwnsOne (e => e.OwnedEntity);
}
I can't find anything on how to define default-values for all the properties of OwnedEntity. I tried to initialize the properties like this:
public class OwnedEntity {
public string stringProperty { get; set; } = "initial"
public decimal decimalProperty { get; set; } = -1M;
public bool boolProperty { get; set; } = false;
public int intProperty { get; set; } = -1;
}
but with no effect. Same goes with the [DefaultValueAttribute] (but that was to expect since it's explicitly mentioned).
There's a bit of information on how to handle initial values for regular entities:
modelBuilder.Entity<SomeOtherEntity>()
.Property(e => e.SomeIntProperty)
.HasDefaultValue(3);
But since I'm facing an Owned Entity Type, I can't access the type via Entity<T>.
Is there a way of doing what I'm looking for?
Some things worth mentioning:
I have a solid amount of specific entities where most of them are using the OwnsOne relation
Declaring all OwnedEntity-properties in a base class is not an option since not all the entities have those properties
I`m using EF Core 2.0.3 and ASP.NET Core MVC 2.0.4
Edit:
Originally, I wanted to have newly created SomeEntity instances to come with preset properties for all of the 'embedded' SomeEntity.OwnedEntity properties.
But looking at how my associated controller works, it all makes sense... I have the following methods for the 'Create' operation:
[HttpGet]
public IActionResult Create () {
return View (nameof (Create));
}
[HttpPost]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public async Task<IActionResult> Create (SomeEntity model) {
context.Add (model);
await context.SaveChangesAsync ();
// redirect etc.
}
Which means that no object is created for the [HttGet] overload of Create and all the HTML inputs linked to properties (via asp-for) are initially empty. Okay. So I guess the proper way of doing this is to manually create a new instance of SomeEntity and pass it to the Create view like this:
[HttpGet]
public IActionResult Create () {
return View (nameof (Create), new SomeEntity());
}
Is this the right approach then or are there some more things to keep in mind?
Assuming you understand what EF Core Default Values are for, and just looking for equivalent of Entity<T>().Property(...) equivalent.
The owned entities are always configured for each owner type by using the ReferenceOwnershipBuilder<TEntity,TRelatedEntity> class methods. To access this class you either use the result of OwnsOne method, or use the OwnsOne overload taking second argument of type Action<ReferenceOwnershipBuilder<TEntity,TRelatedEntity>>.
For instance, using the second approach:
builder.Entity<SomeEntity>().OwnsOne(e => e.OwnedEntity, ob =>
{
ob.Property(e => e.stringProperty)
.HasDefaultValue("initial");
ob.Property(e => e.decimalProperty)
.HasDefaultValue(-1M);
// etc.
});

Code First Generic Repository with existing Database tables

I have a Generic Repository class using code first to perform data operations.
public class GenericRepository<T> where T : class
{
public DbContext _context = new DbContext("name=con");
private DbSet<T> _dbset;
public DbSet<T> Dbset
{
set { _dbset = value; }
get
{
_dbset = _context.Set<T>();
return _dbset;
}
}
public IQueryable<T> GetAll()
{
return Dbset;
}
}
I have an entity class Teacher, which maps to an existing table "Teacher" in my database, with exactly the same fields.
public class Teacher
{
public Teacher()
{
//
// TODO: Add constructor logic here
//
}
public int TeacherID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public int Age { get; set; }
}
I have the following code below which binds data from Teacher to a repeater control.
GenericRepository<Teacher> studentrepository = new GenericRepository<Teacher>();
rptSchoolData.DataSource = studentrepository.GetAll().ToList();
rptSchoolData.DataBind();
But I get an exception exception "The entity type Teacher is not part of the model in the current context". Do I have to do any additional work when using an existing database for code first?
You must create a context class that derives from DbContext. The class should have properties of type DbSet<T> which will give EF enough information to create and communicate with a database with default naming and association conventions. It will use properties like Student.Teacher (if any) to infer foreign key associations:
public class MyContext: DbContext
{
public DbSet<Teacher> Teachers { get; set; }
public DbSet<Student> Students { get; set; }
...
}
If the defaults are not what you want, or when you've got an existing database that you want to match with the names and associations in your model you can do two (or three) things:
Override OnModelCreating to configure the mappings manually. Like when the tables in the database have those ugly prefixes (to remind people that they see a table when they see a table):
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<Teacher>()
.Map(e => e.ToTable("tblTeacher"));
...
}
(Less favorable) Use data annotations to do the same.
Turn it around and use Entity Framework Powertools to reverse-engineer a database into a class model including fluent mappings and a DbContext-derived context. Maybe easier to modify an existing model than to start from scratch.

Design a class to be Unit testable

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();
}

EF 4.1 messing things up. Has FK naming strategy changed?

I've just installed the new Entity Framework 4.1 NuGet package, thus replacing the EFCodeFirst package as per NuGet intructions and this article of Scott Hanselman.
Now, imagine the following model:
public class User
{
[Key]
public string UserName { get; set; }
// whatever
}
public class UserThing
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public virtual User User { get; set; }
// whatever
}
The last EFCodeFirst release generated a foreign key in the UserThing table called UserUserName.
After installing the new release and running I get the following error:
Invalid column name 'User_UserName'
Which of course means that the new release has a different FK naming strategy. This is consistent among all other tables and columns: whatever FK EFCodeFirst named AnyOldForeignKeyID EF 4.1 wants to call AnyOldForeignKey_ID (note the underscore).
I don't mind naming the FK's with an underscore, but in this case it means having to either unnecessarily throw away the database and recreate it or unnecessarily renaming al FK's.
Does any one know why the FK naming convention has changed and whether it can be configured without using the Fluent API?
Unfortunately, one of the things that didn't make it to this release is the ability to add custom conventions in Code First:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2011/03/15/ef-4-1-release-candidate-available.aspx
If you don't want to use the fluent API to configure the column name (which I don't blame you), then most straight forward way to do it is probably using sp_rename.
Why don't you do the following?
public class User
{
[Key]
public string UserName { get; set; }
// whatever
}
public class UserThing
{
public int ID { get; set; }
public string UserUserName { get; set; }
[ForeignKey("UserUserName")]
public virtual User User { get; set; }
// whatever
}
Or, if you don't want to add the UserUserName property to UserThing, then use the fluent API, like so:
// class User same as in question
// class UserThing same as in question
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public MyContext()
: base("MyCeDb") { }
public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
public DbSet<UserThing> UserThings { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Entity<UserThing>()
.HasOptional(ut => ut.User) // See if HasRequired fits your model better
.WithMany().Map(u => u.MapKey("UserUserName"));
}
}

Resources