In traditional ASP.NET applications (that use System.Web), I'm able to cache data in
HttpContext.Current.Items
Now in Owin the HttpContext is not available anymore. Is there a way to do the similar thing in Owin - a static method/property through which I can set/get per request data?
This question gave some hints but not exact a solution in my case.
Finally I found OwinRequestScopeContext. Very simple to use.
In the Startup class:
app.UseRequestScopeContext();
Then I can add per request cache like this:
OwinRequestScopeContext.Current.Items["myclient"] = new Client();
Then anywhere in my code I can do (just like HttpContext.Current):
var currentClient = OwinRequestScopeContext.Current.Items["myclient"] as Client;
Here is the source code if you're curious. It uses CallContext.LogicalGetData and LogicalSetData. Does any one see any problem with this approach of caching request data?
You just need to use OwinContext for this:
From your middleware:
public class HelloWorldMiddleware : OwinMiddleware
{
public HelloWorldMiddleware (OwinMiddleware next) : base(next) { }
public override async Task Invoke(IOwinContext context)
{
context.Set("Hello", "World");
await Next.Invoke(context);
}
}
From MVC or WebApi:
Request.GetOwinContext().Get<string>("Hello");
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am developing a new WebApi using .NetCore2.2, Autofac4, Dapper. There are few very basic questions because this is my first WebApi project. As part of this project I have to write both unit-test and integration-test.
My questions are as follows (Sample Code is give below):
What is recommended return type between "Task< IActionResult >" and "Task< IEnumerable >"?
Recommended object Scope of the dependencies in startup class for my project?
Do I really need UnitOfWork for this given project structure?
What are the flaws if I follow this design?
Is there any better way to design this API?
As TDD do I need write test cases for API layer(Controller) and Infrastructure layer only or Doman Layer (it doesn't have any logic) as well?
What are the scenario I must include in my controller unit test?
Domain Layer:
[Table("Movie")]
public class Movie
{
[Key]
[DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGeneratedOption.Identity)]
public int ID {get;set;}
public string Title {get;set;}
}
public interface ICommandRepository<T> where T : class
{
Task CreateAsync(T entity);
Task UpdateAsync(T entity);
Task DeleteAsync(T entity);
}
public interface IQueryRepository<T> where T : class
{
Task<IEnumerable<T>> GetAllMoviesAsync();
Task<IEnumerable<T>> GetMoviesByTitleAsync(string title);
Task<T> GetMovieByIDAsync(int id);
}
Infrastructure Layer:
public class MovieCommandContext : DbContext
{
public MovieCommandContext(DbContextOptions<MovieCommandContext> options)
: base(options)
{}
public DbSet<Movie> Movies { get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
}
public class MovieQueryContext : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDbConnection connection;
public MovieQueryContext(string connectionString)
{
connection = new SqlConnection(connectionString);
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<Movie>> GetAllMovies()
{
// Use Dapper->QueryAsync
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
...
public void Dispose()
{
if (connection?.State == ConnectionState.Open)
connection.Close();
}
}
public class MovieCommandRepository : ICommandRepository<Movie>
{
private readonly MovieCommandContext context;
public MovieCommandRepository(MovieCommandContext dbContext)
{
context = dbContext;
}
public async Task CreateAsync(Movie movie)
{
await context.AddAsync<Movie>(movie);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
public async Task UpdateAsync(Movie movie)
{
var entity = context.Attach<Movie>(movie);
context.Entry<Movie>(movie).State = EntityState.Modified;
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
public async Task DeleteAsync(Movie movie)
{
context.Remove<Movie>(movie);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
}
public class MovieQueryRepository : IQueryRepository<Movie>
{
private readonly MovieQueryContext context;
public MovieQueryRepository(MovieQueryContext dbContext)
{
context = dbContext;
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<Movie>> GetAllMoviesAsync()
{
return await context.GetAllMovies();
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<Movie>> GetMoviesByTitleAsync(string title)
{
return await context.GetMovieByName(title);
}
public async Task<Movie> GetMovieByIDAsync(int id)
{
return await context.GetMovieByID(id);
}
}
API Layer:
[Route("api/sample")]
[ApiController]
public class SampleController : ControllerBase
{
private readonly ICommandRepository<Movie> movieCommand;
private readonly IQueryRepository<Movie> movieQuery;
public SampleController(ICommandRepository<Movie> command, IQueryRepository<Movie> query)
{
movieCommand = command;
movieQuery = query;
}
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetMoviesAsync()
{
try
{
var movies = await movieQuery.GetAllMoviesAsync();
return Ok(movies);
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
[Route("{name:alpha}")]
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetMoviesByTitle(string movieTitle)
{
try
{
var movies = await movieQuery.GetMoviesByTitleAsync(movieTitle);
return Ok(movies);
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
[Route("{movieID:int:min(1)}")]
[HttpGet]
public async Task<IActionResult> GetMovieByID(int movieID)
{
try
{
var movie = await movieQuery.GetMovieByIDAsync(movieID);
return Ok(movie);
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
[Route("")]
[HttpDelete("{id:int:min(1)}")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Delete(int id)
{
try
{
var movie = await movieQuery.GetMovieByIDAsync(id);
if (movie == null)
return BadRequest();
await movieCommand.DeleteAsync(movie);
return Ok();
}
catch
{
// TODO: Logging
return BadRequest();
}
}
}
Startup.cs:
private void ConfigureContainer(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
var contextOptions = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<MovieCommandContext>()
.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection"))
.Options;
builder.RegisterType<MovieCommandContext>()
.WithParameter("options", contextOptions);
builder.RegisterType<MovieQueryContext>()
.AsSelf()
.WithParameter("connectionString",Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection"));
builder.RegisterType<MovieCommandRepository>().As<ICommandRepository<Movie>>();
builder.RegisterType<MovieQueryRepository>().As<IQueryRepository<Movie>>();
}
Point 1:
You should return an IActionResult to return a propper Http response, instead of returning the Task<IEnumerable<Movie>>. That way you guarantee the S and the I of SOLID principles
Point 2 & 3:
see here: Entity Framework Core service default lifetime
Point 4:
IQueryRepository as some bad methods names. The names are tight coupled with domain concepts and they should not.
You are failing the Separation of concerns ( the S of SOLID).
ICommandRepository as an Add method that is being expose to some controller and not being used ( same as Update) here you are failing on the Interface segregation.
MovieQueryContext does not implement IDisposable pattern correctly please see here!
MovieQueryContext is different from MovieCommandContext on the way it initializes. Why? You should try to be coherent the way you design you types because it will give you reusability and apply the DRY principle.
Consider the effort you will need to to if the access to the database change to mongodb. Or if the access to the database changes to a remote service How many changes, and where do you do does changes to support that?
If Movie is a Domain Type it should not have attributes to any specific database access. keep it POCO as possible.
Point 5:
To design your API consider this post. The way you inject your dependencies should consider the lifetime of those objects. Keep in mind that in aspnet.core ApiControllers lifetime is per request. The way you manage your resources to access database should take that into consideration.
If you are considering CQRS, the controllers should be diferent. Keeping in mind the Separation of concerns regarding those responsabilities. One controller would have the responsability to expose some query API, and the other to process commands. There are good frameworks to support CQRS see this scott hanselman post.
Constraints exists on Route attribute not on Verbs.
Logging and Exception handling should be done on an ActionAttribute or on some Especific Middleware, because they are considered to be cross cutting concerns.
Delete Action does not comply to the Http protocol. please consider http rfc:
GetMoviesByTitle Action does not have the name parameter.
Point 6:
Unit tests should test business logic, mocking all the external dependencies with values relevant to the test in place. TDD methodology considers 3 main steps ( here for more details):
the first step consists on implementing the unit tests so it fails
Iterate on implementation of the method being test until it passes with success
Improve the implementation of the method being test
If you want to test your ApiController as being used with all the middleware integrated you need to have that environment put in place without using an actual server that open ports. To do that please consider the usage of TestServer ( see here and here )
1. What is recommended return type between "Task< IActionResult >" and "Task< IEnumerable < Movie > >"?
Even though the API allows you yo use the interface IActionResult, I wouldn't use it at all. Why? Semantics, the only way to know what the true return is, is to see the implementation. It's clearer if the returns is Task< IEnumerable< Movie>>.
If you need to throw a BadRequest or other http code, use the asp.net pipeline to handle this for you. See Notes below.
When using whatever tool to generate some sort of documentation of this API it won't help hiding the real result.
2. object Scope of the dependencies in startup class for my project?
Avoid sharing state between calls, to avoid future issues with synchronization just stick to scope dependencies per request. This may be a performance issue if you have a lot of requests, you can always change this later on. If it's an issue at all.
3. I really need UnitOfWork for this given project structure?
4. What are the flaws if I follow this design?
5. Is there any better way to design this API?
In hope of answering the above 3 questions. The problem I see is extending the functionality around Movie model. e.g. add a fourth action on ICommandRepository.
It seams it will grow vertically. It will only be a problem if multiple classes implement this interface, because they will all need to change. (Interface Segregation Principle)
A way to solve this is to use the Mediator pattern. Your controller will receive the mediator and the mediator will deliver the message to whoever handles it. With this type of solution you could have a class per operation and therefore your system can grow horizontally as new classes are added to the system. (Open Close Principle)
In time, you'll see that a lot of functionality can be reused and adding features is just a matter of configuration.
6. As TDD do I need write test cases for API layer(Controller) and Infrastructure layer only or Domain Layer (it doesn't have any logic) as well?
The idea of Testing in general is to test behavior, when TDDing that should be your mindset. In my experience I found that testing the whole behavior is better than multiple parts of the same behavior.
In this case, the API Layer is part of the infrastructure as is the persistence layer. They should have their own tests, the business rules (Application layer) should have their own tests. The application layer is what you want to last forever. The Api will change as technologies appear (windows forms, web forms, web apis, etc.) Regarding databases as well, you don't know if you want to stick with EF forever.
If the domain layer doesn't provide any behavior then there is nothing to test.
7. What are the scenario I must include in my controller unit test?
I would test using asp.net TestHost:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/test/integration-tests?view=aspnetcore-2.2
Test the if routing is correct, test failing scenarios and successful scenarios.
Some notes:
An exception in the Controller does not mean a BadRequest.
Logging is a cross cutting concern, don't just do it everywhere.
Either use the asp.net pipeline or just move this concern to
application layer.
It appears that MovieQueryRepository does nothing, so you don't need it.
This is just some remarks about your questions, there is much more to it. Just remember to keep things simple and organized.
Hope it helped, let me know!
This is more of a design related question, and any help/pointers in the right direction is highly appreciated.
I am working on a ASP.NET Web API2 application, and have an Authorization filter and other Action filters. Within these filters, I need to access the Request object that comes as a part of the HttpPost request body.
I use the following code to read the request body content and deserialize into the desired object. It works fine.
//actionContext is HttpActionContext
var requestContent = actionContext.Request.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
var request = JsonSerializer.GetObject<BaseOTARequestModel>(requestContent.Result);
To serve a particular request, I am deserializing the request content twice (I have 2 filters). Once the request reaches the controller action, it is deserialized again by the Web API framework. I feel guilty that every request is deserialized 3 times, and have a feeling there is a better way to handle this.
How can I avoid deserializing the request multiple times in a request?
I took this on as a challenge and came up with this solution. Here's a base filter attribute class:
public abstract class BaseOTARequestFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private HttpActionContext _actionContext;
protected BaseOTARequestModel RequestModel
{
get
{
if (_actionContext.Request.Properties.ContainsKey("RequestModel"))
{
return _actionContext.Request.Properties["RequestModel"] as BaseOTARequestModel;
}
return null;
}
set
{
_actionContext.Request.Properties["RequestModel"] = value;
}
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
_actionContext = actionContext;
if (RequestModel == null)
{
//actionContext is HttpActionContext
var requestContent = actionContext.Request.Content.ReadAsStringAsync();
RequestModel = JsonSerializer.GetObject<BaseOTARequestModel>(requestContent.Result);
}
}
}
This base class handles your deserialization and uses the Request.Properties collection to store it. (OK, I know a Web API is stateless but this state only exists during the execution of the request so fine imho.)
Your various attributes should all inherit this base class and can use the derialized object as follows:
public override void OnActionExecuting(HttpActionContext actionContext)
{
base.OnActionExecuting(actionContext);
var data = RequestModel;
// etc.
}
This may not be the most elegant solution, but I believe it works. Interested to hear the views of others.
I very read for this problem but i can not fixed this so i think create a new question in this site.
HttpContext.Current.GetOwinContext();
i want get GetOwinContext values with above code . above code there are in my startup.cs
[assembly: OwinStartupAttribute(typeof(OwinTest.Startup))]
public partial class Startup
{
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
ConfigureAuth(app);
var c = HttpContext.Current.GetOwinContext();
}
}
and i get this error
//No owin.Environment item was found in the context
but var c = HttpContext.Current.GetOwinContext(); work for me in HomeController fine.!
I just get GetOwinContext in my startup.cs class.
thankfull
You can't do that. The OWIN context does not exist without a request, and the Startup class only runs once for the application, not for each request. Your Startup class should initialize your middleware and your application and the middleware and the application should access the OWIN context when needed.
As mentioned, what you are asking isn't possible. However, depending on your requirements, the following is possible and gives you access within the context of creating object instances. This is something I needed in order to check for whether an instance was already added else where (I have multiple startup classes in different projects).
public void Configuration(IAppBuilder app)
{
ConfigureAuth(app);
// Ensure we have our "main" access setup
app.CreatePerOwinContext<DataAccessor>(
(options, owinContext) =>
{
// Check that an instance hasn't already been added to
// the OwinContext in another plugin
return owinContext.Get<DataAccessor>() ?? DataAccessor.CreateInstance(options, owinContext);
}
);
}
Within the CreatePerOwinContext we have access to the OwinContext, so we can access it at the point of creating a new type. This might not help everyone as it's a little more specific to a person's needs, but is useful to know.
I am building an ASP.NET 5 (vNext) site that will host dynamic pages, static content, and a REST Web API. I have found examples of how to create middleware using the new ASP.NET way of doing things but I hit a snag.
I am trying write my own authentication middleware. I would like to create a custom attribute to attach to the controller actions (or whole controllers) that specifies that it requires authentication. Then during a request, in my middleware, I would like to cross reference the list of actions that require authentication with the action that applies to this current request. It is my understanding that I configure my middleware before the MVC middleware so that it is called first in the pipeline. I need to do this so the authentication is done before the request is handled by the MVC controller so that I can't prevent the controller from ever being called if necessary. But doesn't this also mean that the MVC router hasn't determined my route yet? It appears to me the determination of the route and the execution of that routes action happen at one step in the pipeline right?
If I want to be able to determine if a request matches a controller's action in a middleware pipeline step that happens before the request is handled by the controller, am I going to have to write my own url parser to figure that out? Is there some way to get at the routing data for the request before it is actually handled by the controller?
Edit: I'm beginning to think that the RouterMiddleware might be the answer I'm looking for. I'm assuming I can figure out how to have my router pick up the same routes that the standard MVC router is using (I use attribute routing) and have my router (really authenticator) mark the request as not handled when it succeeds authentication so that the default mvc router does the actual request handling. I really don't want to fully implement all of what the MVC middleware is doing. Working on trying to figure it out. RouterMiddleware kind of shows me what I need to do I think.
Edit 2: Here is a template for the middleware in ASP.NET 5
public class TokenAuthentication
{
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public TokenAuthentication(RequestDelegate next)
{
_next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context)
{
//do stuff here
//let next thing in the pipeline go
await _next(context);
//do exit code
}
}
I ended up looking through the ASP.NET source code (because it is open source now!) and found that I could copy the UseMvc extension method from this class and swap out the default handler for my own.
public static class TokenAuthenticationExtensions
{
public static IApplicationBuilder UseTokenAuthentication(this IApplicationBuilder app, Action<IRouteBuilder> configureRoutes)
{
var routes = new RouteBuilder
{
DefaultHandler = new TokenRouteHandler(),
ServiceProvider = app.ApplicationServices
};
configureRoutes(routes);
routes.Routes.Insert(0, AttributeRouting.CreateAttributeMegaRoute(
routes.DefaultHandler,
app.ApplicationServices));
return app.UseRouter(routes.Build());
}
}
Then you create your own version of this class. In my case I don't actually want to invoke the actions. I will let the typical Mvc middleware do that. Since that is the case I gut all the related code and kept just what I needed to get the route data which is in actionDescriptor variable. I probably can remove the code dealing with backing up the route data since I dont think what I will be doing will affect the data, but I have kept it in the example. This is the skeleton of what I will start with based on the mvc route handler.
public class TokenRouteHandler : IRouter
{
private IActionSelector _actionSelector;
public VirtualPathData GetVirtualPath(VirtualPathContext context)
{
EnsureServices(context.Context);
context.IsBound = _actionSelector.HasValidAction(context);
return null;
}
public async Task RouteAsync(RouteContext context)
{
var services = context.HttpContext.RequestServices;
EnsureServices(context.HttpContext);
var actionDescriptor = await _actionSelector.SelectAsync(context);
if (actionDescriptor == null)
{
return;
}
var oldRouteData = context.RouteData;
var newRouteData = new RouteData(oldRouteData);
if (actionDescriptor.RouteValueDefaults != null)
{
foreach (var kvp in actionDescriptor.RouteValueDefaults)
{
if (!newRouteData.Values.ContainsKey(kvp.Key))
{
newRouteData.Values.Add(kvp.Key, kvp.Value);
}
}
}
try
{
context.RouteData = newRouteData;
//Authentication code will go here <-----------
var authenticated = true;
if (!authenticated)
{
context.IsHandled = true;
}
}
finally
{
if (!context.IsHandled)
{
context.RouteData = oldRouteData;
}
}
}
private void EnsureServices(HttpContext context)
{
if (_actionSelector == null)
{
_actionSelector = context.RequestServices.GetRequiredService<IActionSelector>();
}
}
}
And finally, in the Startup.cs file's Configure method at the end of the pipeline I have it setup so that I use the same routing setup (I use attribute routing) for the both my token authentication and mvc router.
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostingEnvironment env, ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
{
//Other middleware delcartions here <----------------
Action<IRouteBuilder> routeBuilder = routes =>
{
routes.MapRoute(
name: "default",
template: "{controller=Home}/{action=Index}/{id?}");
};
app.UseTokenAuthentication(routeBuilder);
//Middleware after this point will be blocked if authentication fails by having the TokenRouteHandler setting context.IsHandled to true
app.UseMvc(routeBuilder);
}
Edit 1:
I should also note that at the moment I am not concerned about the extra time required to select the route twice which is what I think would happen here since both my middleware and the Mvc middleware will be doing that. If that becomes a performance problem then I will build the mvc and authentication in to one handler. That would be best idea performance-wise, but what I have shown here is the most modular approach I think.
Edit 2:
In the end to get the information I needed I had to cast the ActionDescriptor to a ControllerActionDescriptor. I am not sure what other types of actions you can have in ASP.NET but I am pretty sure all my action descriptors should be ControllerActionDescriptors. Maybe the old legacy Web Api stuff needs another type of ActionDescriptor.
i have some action inside controller likes:
public class ValuesController : Controller
{
[HttpPost]
public string GetInfo()
{
Thread.Sleep(30000); // logics imitation
return "result";
}
}
when I send request from client-side on this action I'll receive "Main Thread blocking" (like deadlock) while awaiting "logics imitations"
how i can prevent it?
already tried:
public class ValuesController : Controller
{
[HttpPost]
public async Task<string> GetInfo()
{
return await Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(30000);
return "result";
});;
}
}
Not working...
already looked (ASP.NET MVC and Ajax, concurrent requests?), but SessionState.ReadOnly way is not for me...
also tried using .svc service instead controller-action but have same troubles.
MVC by default blocks parallel sessions, and there is only one way to avoid it:
[SessionState(SessionStateBehavior.ReadOnly)]
Attribute on Controller and clearly separating logics with using writing and reading sessions.
This question was posted by my colleague. Yes, we have the situation where we need to "fire and forget" (we are trying to call actions asynchronically, when different actions are executed at the same time, but still all we have managed to get is to call actions one after another)