public abstract class MyControllerBase : Controller
{
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
// do some magic
}
}
All of my controllers inherit from MyControllerBase. The problem is that now I can't unit test certain methods because the filter sets some authorisation/logic flags which influence code path.
Is there any way to manually trigger OnActionExecuting? How does the pipeline trigger these events?
EDIT: to show a little more the idea behind this design in response to comments. I basically have something like this:
public abstract class MyControllerBase : Controller
{
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
UserProperties =
_userService
.GetUserProperties(filterContext.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name);
ViewBag.UserProperties = UserProperties;
}
public UserProperties { get; private set; }
public bool CheckSomethingAboutUser()
{
return UserProperties != null
&& UserProperties.IsAuthorisedToPerformThisAction;
}
// ... etc, other methods for querying UserProperties
}
So now anywhere in View or Controller I can get details of the current user, what is their email, what authorisation they have, which department they work for etc.
Example:
public class PurchasingController : MyControllerBase
{
public ActionResult RaisePurchaseOrder(Item item)
{
// can use UserProperties from base class to determine correct action...
if (UserProperties.CanRaiseOrders)
if (UserProperties.Department == item.AllocatedDepartment)
}
}
So this design works really nice, but as you can see testing the above action is difficult as I can't directly manipulate the UserProperties in the test set up.
I'm not sure you're suppose to override OnActionExecuting like that in MCV, normally I make an ActionFilterAttribute
public class SomeMagicAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
}
}
Then your class:
[SomeMagic]
public abstract class MyControllerBase : Controller
{
}
Then in your unit test you can just do
var magic = new SomeMagicAttribute();
var simulatedContext = new ActionExecutingContext();
magic.OnActionExecuting(simulatedContext);
Related
I tried this answer: [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18406506/custom-filter-attributes-inject-dependency][1] to implement ActionFilterAttribute (System.Web.Http.Filters) for Web API project (not MVC). But my custom attribute never called in controller. I would be grateful for any advice.
Custom attribute:
public class MyAttribute : FilterAttribute { }
Filter:
public class MyFilter : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private readonly IMyService _myService;
public MyFilter(IMyService myService)
{
_myService = myService;
}
public override async Task OnActionExecutingAsync(HttpActionContext actionContext, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
//do some with actionContext
throw new Exception("You can`t go here");
}
}
Controller method:
[My] // Not called
[HttpPost]
[Route("/do-some")]
public async Task DoSome(string myString)
{
//do some
}
Register filter:
public partial class Startup
{
protected void ConfigureApi(IAppBuilder app, IContainer container)
{
var configuration = new HttpConfiguration();
//...
var serviceInstance = container.GetInstance<IMyService>();
configuration.Filters.Add(new MyFilter(serviceInstance));
}
}
Is something wrong here?
Almost everything is fine with the your code, but you should register your filter and service in another way.
In Asp Net Core WebAPI there several ways you can register your filter:
Globally - for all controllers, actions, and Razor Pages. More information in Microsoft documentation
For only one controller/method. More information in Microsoft documentation
Example of global registration:
services.AddControllers(options =>
{
options.Filters.Add(typeof(LoggerFilterAttribute));
});
Example of method registration in Controller:
I want notice - in this case you should use ServiceFilter - this helps DI resolve any dependecines for your filter.
[HttpGet]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(LoggerFilterAttribute))]
public IEnumerable<WeatherForecast> Get()
{
}
This is my simple example for this task:
My SimpleService
public interface ISimpleService
{
void Notify(string text);
}
public class SimpleService : ISimpleService
{
public void Notify(string text)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Notify from {nameof(SimpleService)}. {text}");
}
}
ActionFilterAttribute
public class LoggerFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private readonly ISimpleService _simpleService;
public LoggerFilterAttribute(ISimpleService simpleService)
{
_simpleService = simpleService;
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
_simpleService.Notify($"Method {nameof(OnActionExecuting)}");
}
public override Task OnActionExecutionAsync(ActionExecutingContext context, ActionExecutionDelegate next)
{
_simpleService.Notify($"Method {nameof(OnActionExecutionAsync)}");
return base.OnActionExecutionAsync(context, next);
}
}
The main step - you should choose way of registration, because there is main difference between global registration and per controller/method in code.
If you want use this way of registration - you need only register global filter and this is enough. All magic will be do by WebAPI with DI registration.
services.AddControllers(options =>
{
options.Filters.Add(typeof(LoggerFilterAttribute));
});
If you want use registration per controller/method. You need to register your filter in DI. Because without it you will have Exception.
services.AddScoped<LoggerFilterAttribute>();
[HttpGet]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(LoggerFilterAttribute))]
public IEnumerable<WeatherForecast> Get()
{
}
The last step register my service
services.AddTransient<ISimpleService, SimpleService>();
Results
Im using asp.net core. Here is the basic way to use model with controller.
public class BookController : Controller
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context { get; set; }
public BookController(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public IActionResult Create(Book model)
{
// adding new model
}
public IActionResult Edit(Book model)
{
// modifying the model
}
public IActionResult Delete(Book model)
{
// removing the model
}
}
My question: when shall/should I implement the code inside the controller? When shall/should I implement it in another class?
Something like this:
public interface IBook
{
int Add(Book book);
int Update(Book book);
int Remove(Book book);
}
public class BookData : IBook
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context { get; set; }
BookData(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context
}
public int Add(Book model)
{
// ...
return _context.SaveChanges();
}
// other implements...
}
Then, calling it inside controller:
public IActionResult Create(Book model)
{
var bookData = new BookData(_context);
int result = bookData.Add(model);
// ...
}
For the interface, I think it may be useful for the case: I have many controllers that require same action/method names.
Example: MessageController requires 3 actions/methods at least (Create/Add, Edit/Update, Delete/Remove). It's same to NotificationController class, CommentController class...
So, the interface can be improved to:
public interface IMyService<T> where T : class
{
int Add(T model);
int Update(T model);
int Remove(T model);
}
public class MyService<T> : IMyService<T> where T : class
{
private readonly ApplicationDbContext _context { get; set; }
public MyService(ApplicationDbContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public int Add(T model)
{
Type type = typeof(model);
if (type == typeof(Book))
{
// adding new book model
}
else if (type == typeof(Comment))
{
// adding new comment model
}
// ...
return -1;
}
// other implements...
}
Do I misunderstand something?
If I read it correctly with data classes you actually means repository (which is an abstraction over the persistence layer). You should always encapsulate persistence logic behind a class (be it via repository pattern, command/query pattern or request handler) and use it instead of directly using the context in your service classes.
That being said, you can directly inject your BookData to your controller instead of the ApplicationDbContext. One thing you should consider you lose in your current implementation is the Unit of Work pattern. Right now, every add will instantly persist the data.
This may not be what you want, so you should move the _context.SaveChanges(); outside of the Add/Remove/Update methods and call it explicitly. This allows you to insert i.e. 10 records and if one of them fails, nothing will be persisted to the database.
But if you call _context.SaveChanges(); after each insert and you get an error in the 8th (of 10) records, then 7 get persisted and 3 will be missing and you get inconsistent data.
Controller shouldn't contain any logic at all, only do short validation of the input model (ModelState.IsValid check) and if its okay, call the services which do all the logic and report the result back to the user. Only in very simple tutorials and guides logic is put into the controller action for reasons of simplicity. In real world applications you should never do that. Controllers are much harder to unit test than service classes.
Is there a way to do this using DI? I tried IScopedInstance<Controller> but this gives me null. Poked around aspnet's source code but didn't win. Any ideas?
I have a controller that accepts different IPaymentMethods. The IPaymentMethod can be a ViewComponent that can render Views. If the IPaymentMethod is a ViewComponent, I want it to use MVC's built-in model binding on post back.
public class XController : Controller
{
// ctor, props, ...
public IActionResult Checkout()
{
return View(new Model
{
PaymentMethodId = 1,
PaymentMethodType = typeof(MyPaymentMethod) // The razor file will use this type to render it as a ViewComponent
});
}
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Checkout(Model model)
{
var paymentMethod = _paymentService.GetPaymentMethodById(model.PaymentMethodId);
paymentMethod.ProcessPayment();
// ..
}
}
This is where I need the controller to be injected. I wanted to make use of the built-in MVC validation and model binding.
public class MyPaymentMethod : IPaymentMethod
{
private Controller _currentController;
public MyPaymentMethod(IScopedInstance<Controller> controller)
{
_currentController = controller.Value;
}
public void ProcessPayment()
{
var model = new PaymentModel();
_currentController.TryUpdateModel(model, typeof(PaymentModel), null);
if (!_currentController.ModelState.IsValid)
{
return; // or exception
}
// Process Payment using model
}
public Task<IViewComponentResult> InvokeAsync()
{
// returns View
}
}
public interface IPaymentMethod
{
void ProcessPayment();
}
Since the model instance is required in the ProcessPayment method, why not simply pass it as a parameter?
[HttpPost]
public IActionResult Checkout(PaymentModel model)
{
var paymentMethod = _paymentService.GetPaymentMethodById(model.PaymentMethodId);
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return; // or exception
}
paymentMethod.ProcessPayment(model);
// ..
}
public void ProcessPayment(PaymentModel model)
{
// Process Payment using model
}
Your service is taking on responsibilities that belong to the controller - namely checking ModelState.IsValid.
public interface IPaymentMethod
{
void ProcessPayment(PaymentModel model);
}
You may wish to also pass just the properties that are needed from the payment model, or you may wish to make an IPaymentModel interface to decouple your model from your PaymentService. In that case, your IPaymentModel would go into a shared layer.
public interface IPaymentMethod
{
void ProcessPayment(IPaymentModel model);
}
This no longer works with beta7
At this time of writing (beta6), this probably isn't supported and there is a good reason for it: Controllers in ASP.NET 5 does not need to inherit from the Controller class. I have, however, found a way for this to work using ActionFilters.
public class ScopeControllerActionFilterAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
private readonly IScopedInstance<Controller> _controller;
public ScopeControllerActionFilterAttribute(IScopedInstance<Controller> controller)
{
_controller = controller;
}
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
if (_controller.Value == null)
{
_controller.Value = context.Controller as Controller;
}
}
}
Note that depending on the stage of the http request lifecycle, the Value of IScopedInstance<Controller> may still be empty.
How can I access some ViewBag properties across all my views? I want to have some information like current user name, etc accessible everywhere, but without having to to specifically define the properties in each ActionResult method on my project
The best and straight forward way to accomplish your requirement is to make a Custom Base Controller and inherit your Controller from this Base Controller.
public class MyBaseController : Controller
{
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
ViewBag.someThing = "someThing"; //Add whatever
base.OnActionExecuting(filterContext);
}
}
Now instead of inheriting Controller class,inherit MyBaseController in your Controller as shown :-
public class MyOtherController : MyBaseController
{
public ActionResult MyOtherAction()
{
//Your Stuff
return View();
}
//Other ActionResults
}
You can achieve what you want in a number of ways, each one with their pros and cons.
1. With a Base Class
public class BaseController : Controller
{
protected override ViewResult View(IView view, object model)
{
this.ViewBag.MyProperty = "value";
return base.View(view, model);
}
}
PROS: Quite simple to implement, few lines of code, highly reusable, can be opted-out at will (see comments below).
CONS: Being forced to derive all your controllers from a base class might have some impact, especially if you have a lot of controllers already in place and/or you need to derive them from other base classes.
2. With a Module
public class ViewBagPropertyModule: Module
{
protected override void AttachToComponentRegistration(IComponentRegistry cr,
IComponentRegistration reg)
{
Type limitType = reg.Activator.LimitType;
if (typeof(Controller).IsAssignableFrom(limitType))
{
registration.Activated += (s, e) =>
{
dynamic viewBag = ((Controller)e.Instance).ViewBag;
viewBag.MyProperty= "value";
};
}
}
}
PROS: None I’m aware of.
CONS: None I’m aware of (except being a bit counterintuitive).
3. With a RegisterController Hook
builder.RegisterControllers(asm)
.OnActivated(e => {
dynamic viewBag = ((Controller)e.Instance).ViewBag;
viewBag.MyProperty = "value";
});
PROS: Fast, secure, reusable: ideal for any IoC design pattern.
CONS: Not always suited for small project and/or simple websites: if you’re not using IoC you’re often not using RegisterController at all.
4. With an ActionFilter attribute
public class MyPropertyActionFilter : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnResultExecuting(ResultExecutingContext filterContext)
{
filterContext.Controller.ViewBag.MyProperty = "value";
}
}
and then in your Global.asax.cs file:
protected void Application_Start()
{
AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();
GlobalFilters.Filters.Add(new MyPropertyActionFilter(), 0);
}
PROS: Easily the less-obtrusive method amongst those mentioned.
CONS: None I’m aware of.
I also wrote this article on my blog explaining all the above methods.
One way: Create a custom attribute, then you can apply it globally in the FilterConfig. Then you don't have to do anything in your controllers.
public class MyCustomViewActionFilter : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
dynamic ViewBag = filterContext.Controller.ViewBag;
ViewBag.Id = "123";
ViewBag.Name = "Bob";
}
}
In App_Start/FilterConfig.cs:
public static void RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilterCollection filters)
{
filters.Add(new MyCustomViewActionFilter());
}
Another way if all you need is the User information. You can add the following to the top of your view:
#using Microsoft.AspNet.Identity
Then access your User Name using the following syntax:
#User.Identity.GetUserName()
You can also override the IPrincipal implementation and provide your own properties and methods to add more information you need to render.
UPDATE: looking at MVC 6 in Asp.Net vNext this is actually baked into the framework. http://www.asp.net/vnext/overview/aspnet-vnext/vc#inj
My current solution:
Create a base controller with all needed properties (very useful and advisable).
public abstract class BaseController : Controller {
public string MyProperty { get; set; }
}
Inherits all your controllers, from the base controller.
public class MyController : BaseController {
//you can read your property here
}
In your views, add this line just after the "#model" sentence:
#{ BaseController ctr = ViewContext.Controller as BaseController; }
Now, you can use the property in your view, without populate the ViewBag, without the need of check and cast the ViewBag values, etc.
In the view, you can use an simple inline expression:
#(ctr.MyProperty)
Or do some magic logic...
#{
if(ctr.MyProperty == "whatelse") {
//do ...
}
}
Easy, fast and comfortable.
For Net Core 5 Mvc app:
Create a ActionFilter class first:
public class GlobalSettingFilter : IActionFilter
{
private IConfiguration configuration;
//For example will get data from the configuration object
public GlobalSettingFilter(IConfiguration configuration)
{
this.configuration = configuration;
}
public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
//Populate the ViewData or ViewBag from your data source
(context.Controller as Controller).ViewData["helpUrl"] = configuration.GetValue<String>("helpUrl");
}
public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context){}
}
Then, on Startup add:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
...
services.AddControllersWithViews(options =>
{
options.Filters.Add(new GlobalSettingFilter(Configuration));
});
}
Just for the sake of completeness, to get the configuration object use:
public class Startup
{
public Startup(IConfiguration configuration)
{
Configuration = configuration;
}
public IConfiguration Configuration { get; }
...
}
You can create a base controller that is inherited by all of your controllers, and in this controller (the base one) add:
protected override void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext filterContext)
{
// Fill your global viewbag variables here
}
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();
}