I'm new in workflows C #, I want to set up an activity that will be blocked until a new element insert into my database , after I pass to another activity.
From your question I believe you are asking for a way to stop the workflow proceeding until you get a database entry and if you do to continue the workflow.
And if you do not get the entry to not continue the workflow.
This answer uses the Flowchart model of workflows.
A way to do this is to write an Code Activity (also called Custom Activity) that reads your database and determines if the entry has arrived and then sets a bool Out Argument of the activity. This bool should set a Variable in the workflow.
Then after that you add a FlowDecision activity to read the bool Variable.
If true you continue the workflow
If false you add a loop back to your database reading activity.
This solution leaves the workflow running in memory.
There are more sophisticated solutions but as you are new to workflows I have given the most simple.
public sealed class Controller: CodeActivity
{
public OutArgument<String> Item { get; set; }
CodeActivityContext con;
public SqlTableDependency<VacationRequest> _dependency;
private void _dependency_OnChanged(object sender, TableDependency.EventArgs.RecordChangedEventArgs<VacationRequest> even)
{
if (even.ChangeType != ChangeType.None)
{
switch (even.ChangeType)
{
case ChangeType.Update:
try
{
Item.Set(con, "yeééés");// ****Exception
Console.WriteLine("iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii");
//_dependency.Stop();
break;
}
catch (Exception)
{
con.SetValue(Item, "tttt");
break;
}
}
}
}
protected override void Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
con = context;
_dependency = new SqlTableDependency<VacationRequest>(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["DbContext"].ConnectionString, "VacationRequests");
_dependency.OnChanged += _dependency_OnChanged;
_dependency.Start();
//context.SetValue(Item, "test");
}
}
Related
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;
}
My application can connect with multiple data bases (every data base have the same schema), I store the current DB, selected by user, in Session and encapsule access using a static property like:
public class DataBase
{
public static string CurrentDB
{
get
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"].ToString();
}
set
{
HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"] = value;
}
}
}
Other pieces of code access the static CurrentDB to determine what DB use.
Some actions start background process in a thread and it need access the CurrentDB to do some stuff. I'm thinking using something like this:
[ThreadStatic]
private static string _threadSafeCurrentDB;
public static string CurrentDB
{
get
{
if (HttpContext.Current == null)
return _threadSafeCurrentDB;
return HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"].ToString();
}
set
{
if (HttpContext.Current == null)
_threadSafeCurrentDB = value;
else
HttpContext.Current.Session["CurrentDB"] = value;
}
}
And start thread like:
public class MyThread
{
private string _currentDB;
private thread _thread;
public MyThread (string currentDB)
{
_currentDB = currentDB;
_thread = new Thread(DoWork);
}
public DoWork ()
{
DataBase.CurrentDB = _currentDB;
... //Do the work
}
}
This is a bad practice?
Actually, I think you should be able to determine which thread uses which database, so I would create a class inherited from Thread, but aware of the database it uses. It should have a getDB() method, so, if you need a new Thread which will use the same database as used in another specific Thread, you can use it. You should be able to setDB(db) of a Thread as well.
In the session you are using a current DB approach, which assumes that there is a single current DB. If this assumption describes the truth, then you can leave it as it is and update it whenever a new current DB is being used. If you have to use several databases in the same time, then you might want to have a Dictionary of databases, where the Value would be the DB and the Key would be some kind of code which would have a sematic meaning which you could use to be able to determine which instance is needed where.
I have recently started working with Workflows.I am able to pass output of one activity as input to another through making use of OutArgument .Is it possible without using OutArgument.
If Possible please suggest me how?
Thanks all
You can use a workflow extension to act as a repository of variables in the scope of the whole workflow.
Create a workflow extension that contains properties.
Add the extension to the workflow application.
Set or Get the value of the properties from within Activities.
See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff460215(v=vs.110).aspx
In response to your comment below.
You are wrong in your assumption. The extension "holds" the output from activity 1 which is then available to activity 2.
For example:
Create a class to hold properties:
public class PropertyStoreExtension
{
int _myProperty
public int MyProperty
{
get
{
return this._myProperty;
}
set
{
this._myProperty = value;
}
}
}
Add this as an extension to your workflow:
PropertyStoreExtension propertyStoreExtension = new PropertyStoreExtension
WorkflowInvoker myWorkflowInstence = new
WorkflowInvoker(myWorkflowDefinition());
myWorkflowInstence.Extensions.Add(propertyStoreExtension);
myWorkflowInstence.Invoke()
Your workflow contains 2 activities:
The first takes its "output" and stores it in the extension.
public class Activity1_SetProperty: CodeActivity
{
protected override void Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
PropertyStoreExtension pse =context.GetExtension<PropertyStoreExtension>();
if (pse != null)
{
pse.MyProperty=outputValue;
}
}
}
The second gets the value out of the extension.
public class Activity2_GetProperty: CodeActivity
{
protected override void Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
{
PropertyStoreExtension pse =context.GetExtension<PropertyStoreExtension>();
if (pse != null)
{
int intputValue; = pse.MyProperty
}
}
}
I've created a custom activity which contains as a Body another Activity.
[Browsable(false)]
public Activity Body { get; set; }
protected override void Execute(NativeActivityContext context)
{
ActivityInstance res = context.ScheduleActivity(Body, new CompletionCallback(OnExecuteComplete), OnFaulted);
}
private void OnFaulted(NativeActivityFaultContext faultContext, Exception propagatedException, ActivityInstance propagatedFrom)
{
throw new Exception(propagatedException.Message);
}
When an exception is thrown during the execution of the Body, ma handler for the OnFaulted is hit.
My execution starts with a call to static method Run of the WorkflowApplication class. My WorkflowApplication instance has a handler associated for the OnUnhandledException event.
instance.OnUnhandledException +=
delegate(WorkflowApplicationUnhandledExceptionEventArgs args)
{
Console.WriteLine(args.ExceptionSource);
waitEvent.Set();
return UnhandledExceptionAction.Cancel;
};
But regardless of what happens when the Activity hosted in the Body is executed, i never reach the handler defined above. I thought that if i throw an exception from the OnFaulted, i will be able to redirect the flow to the OnUnhandledException but i was wrong. Any ideas ?
I need this in order to centralize my errors, check them and display messages accordingly. Also i need a way to stop the execution and so on and i don't want to define handlers all over the application. Is there any way to accomplish this ?
As Will suggested, i will post what i did to handle my scenario.
Basically, in my custom activity i have hosted an Assign :
[Browsable(false)]
public Activity Body { get; set; }
Activity System.Activities.Presentation.IActivityTemplateFactory.Create(System.Windows.DependencyObject target)
{
return new Assignment()
{
Body = new Assign() { DisplayName = "" }
};
}
I've added this code to my Execute method :
ActivityInstance res = context.ScheduleActivity(Body, new CompletionCallback(OnExecuteComplete), OnFaulted);
I was trying to run this Assignment by giving an array a negative value as index and and an exception was thrown. This, somehow ended my execution but no handler for the events of my WorkflowApplication instance were hit.
Here is the method given as a callback when executing the body ( in our case the Assign activity ) :
private void OnFaulted(NativeActivityFaultContext faultContext, Exception propagatedException, ActivityInstance propagatedFrom)
{
faultContext.HandleFault();
CommunicationExtension ce = faultContext.GetExtension<CommunicationExtension>();
ITextExpression toTextExpression = (propagatedFrom.Activity as Assign).To.Expression as ITextExpression;
string valueTextExpression = string.Empty;
if ((propagatedFrom.Activity as Assign).Value != null)
{
if ((propagatedFrom.Activity as Assign).Value.Expression != null)
valueTextExpression = (propagatedFrom.Activity as Assign).Value.Expression.ToString();
}
if (ce != null)
{
ce.AddData(string.Format("{0} found on Assignment definition [{1} = {2}]", propagatedException.Message, toTextExpression.ExpressionText, valueTextExpression));
}
}
The trick was to call :
faultContext.HandleFault();
and use CommunicationExtension to allow me to to display the erros in the GUI.
The code for this class is trivial :
public class CommunicationExtension
{
public List<string> Messages { get; set; }
public CommunicationExtension()
{
Messages = new List<string>();
}
public void AddData(string message)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(message))
return;
Messages.Add(message);
}
}
Use this to add the extension:
CommunicationExtension ce = new CommunicationExtension();
instance.Extensions.Add(ce);
where instance is my WorkflowApplication instance.
I understood that for each instance of the workflow application we have one instance of its extension class. So i can send messages like this from all my custom activities in order to display their status.
I hope this scenario can help other people too.
I'm making a small game in LibGDX. I'm saving the player's username locally as well as on a server. The problem is that the application is not waiting for the result of the call so the online database's ID is not saved locally. Here's the overall flow of the code:
//Create a new user object
User user = new User(name);
//Store the user in the online database
NetworkService networkService = new NetworkService();
String id = networkService.saveUser(user);
//Set the newly generated dbase ID on the local object
user.setId(id);
//Store the user locally
game.getUserService().persist(user);
in this code, the id variable is not getting set because the saveUser function is returning immediately. How can I make the application wait for the result of the network request so I can work with results from the server communication?
This is the code for saveUser:
public String saveUser(User user) {
Map<String, String> parameters = new HashMap<String, String>();
parameters.put("action", "save_user");
parameters.put("json", user.toJSON());
HttpRequest httpGet = new HttpRequest(HttpMethods.POST);
httpGet.setUrl("http://localhost:8080/provisioner");
httpGet.setContent(HttpParametersUtils.convertHttpParameters(parameters));
WerewolfsResponseListener responseListener = new WerewolfsResponseListener();
Gdx.net.sendHttpRequest (httpGet, responseListener);
return responseListener.getLastResponse();
}
This is the WerewolfsResponseListener class:
class WerewolfsResponseListener implements HttpResponseListener {
private String lastResponse = "";
public void handleHttpResponse(HttpResponse httpResponse) {
System.out.println(httpResponse.getResultAsString());
this.lastResponse = httpResponse.getResultAsString();
}
public void failed(Throwable t) {
System.out.println("Saving user failed: "+t.getMessage());
this.lastResponse = null;
}
public String getLastResponse() {
return lastResponse;
}
}
The asynchrony you are seeing is from Gdx.net.sendHttpRequest. The methods on the second parameter (your WerewolfsResponseListener) will be invoked whenever the request comes back. The success/failure methods will not be invoked "inline".
There are two basic approaches for dealing with callbacks structured like this: "polling" or "events".
With polling, your main game loop could "check" the responseListener to see if its succeeded or failed. (You would need to modify your current listener a bit to disambiguate the success case and the empty string.) Once you see a valid response, you can then do the user.setId() and such.
With "events" then you can just put the user.setId() call inside the responseListener callback, so it will be executed whenever the network responds. This is a bit more of a natural fit to the Libgdx net API. (It does mean your response listener will need a reference to the user object.)
It is not possible to "wait" inline for the network call to return. The Libgdx network API (correctly) assumes you do not want to block indefinitely in your render thread, so its not structured for that (the listener will be queued up as a Runnable, so the earliest it can run is on the next render call).
I would not recommend this to any human being, but if you need to test something in a quick and dirty fashion and absolutely must block, this will work. There's no timeout, so again, be prepared for absolute filth:
long wait = 10;
while(!listener.isDone())
{
Gdx.app.log("Net", "Waiting for response");
try
{
Thread.sleep(wait *= 2);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static class BlockingResponseListener implements HttpResponseListener
{
private String data;
private boolean done = false;
private boolean succeeded = false;
#Override
public void handleHttpResponse(HttpResponse httpResponse)
{
Gdx.app.log("Net", "response code was "+httpResponse.getStatus().getStatusCode());
data = httpResponse.getResultAsString();
succeeded = true;
done = true;
}
#Override
public void failed(Throwable t)
{
done = true;
succeeded = false;
Gdx.app.log("Net", "Failed due to exception ["+t.getMessage()+"]");
}
public boolean succeeded()
{
return succeeded;
}
public boolean isDone()
{
return done;
}
public String getData()
{
return data;
}
}