I want to use a SQLite session to demo a wpf application; the session uses test data that has been previously created and saved to a db3 test file. I am binding the context, using code similar to what I use in normal testing - working code.
The difference here is likely that I am building the session factory and loading the test data on a background thread. To the extent that this is the problem, I am wondering if there is a different context than the "thread-static" one I am using.
I can see that the contextual session is available on the background thread. Code is below. Does anyone have a suggestion?
============
background thread code
the context is bound here, and is available when GetCurrentSession() is called
public SqLiteDataProvider()
{
lock (padlock)
{
...
var session = sessionFactory.OpenSession();
CurrentSessionContext.Bind(session);
var pathToMother = FileHelper.GetFilePathFromDirectoryName("src", #"mother.db3");
var conn = (SQLiteConnection)sessionFactory.GetCurrentSession().Connection;
SQLiteDataLoader.ImportData(conn, pathToMother);
_activitySubjectDao = new ActivitySubjectDao(sessionFactory);
}
=============
after the background work has finished
The same ActivitySubjectDao is asked to find some data and fails when it accesses the field:
protected ISession _session { get { return _sessionFactory.GetCurrentSession(); } }
When the dao is constructed on the background thread the session is available.
==============
update
I managed to get this to work by separating out the task of building the session factory from that of loading the test data file, and holding the factory reference in the calling class (and discovered I wasn't generating the SQLite schema in the process, which didn't help even a little).
This seems like a fairly common thing to want to do (building a session factory and fetching data in the background) in a desktop app, so I am still hoping someone is aware of a more elegant solution.
I guess the current session is a [ThreadStatic] variable and thus not available to the new thread?
Related
To start, let me say that I have read several questions here about SingleInstance, but still cannot find a direct answer that helps me. That said, I apologize if I missed anything.
Here's my question:
I am building a Xamarin Forms app for iOS and Android. I have a single AppInitializer class in a PCL where I register all of my interface dependencies using Autofac. I then assign the Container from the builder as a static property on the app class. The problem I encounter is that while I'm registering everything with .SingleInstance(), I'm not actually getting a single instance.
Init Logic Example:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<ErrorHandler>().SingleInstance().As<IErrorHandler>();
…
builder.RegisterType<MemberViewModel>().SingleInstance().As<IMemberViewModel>();
…
AppContainer.Current = builder.Build();
I am letting Autofac handle resolving interfaces in my constructors. For example:
public MemberViewModel(ISettingsViewModel settings, IErrorHandler errorHandler, …) : base(settings, errorHandler){…}
I then use said model on a page as below:
Example page usage:
public ProfilePage()
{
InitializeComponent();
var displayModel = Model.CurrentMember;
…
}
…
**public IMemberViewModel Model =>
AppContainer.Current.Resolve<IMemberViewModel>();**
In this example I set Model.CurrentMember's properties immediately before arriving on this page. I've set breakpoints and know for a fact this is happening. However, when I resolve the instance of the model, the properties on CurrentMember are null.
Am I doing something wrong here or have I encountered a bug?
-Edit-
Made it clear that I'm using Autofac.
-Edit 2-
Adding more detail.
My implementation of the IMemberViewModel class has various properties on it, including an observable object called current member. It is declared as below:
public class MemberViewModel : ViewModelBase, IMemberViewModel
{
…
(see constructor above)
…
public MemberDisplay CurrentMember =>
m_CurrentMember ?? (m_CurrentMember = new MemberDisplay())
On the implementation of IMemberViewModel I have a method that sets the various properties on CurrentMember.
The order of operations is this:
The end user taps an image for a member. This fires a command on the (theoretically) singleton instance of the IMemberViewModel implementation. This command executes an async task that awaits an async call to the API to load the data for that member. After that data is loaded and the properties set on CurrentMember, the app navigates to the profile screen. The profile screen resolves IMemberViewModel (per above).
Expected Behavior:
The properties on CurrentMember from the resolved instance of IMemberViewModel are set to the values that have just been set from the load data method. This expectation arises from assuming that there is a single instance of IMemberViewModel.
Actual Behavior:
The CurrentMember's properties are at their default values, i.e. string.Empty, 0, null, etc.
The odd thing here is that this doesn't happen to every model. I have a message model that I am resolving in the same manner on the same screen and it seems to be fine.
This issue turned out to be caused by the way we were going about initializing everything. For posterity's sake, I will give a brief breakdown of what was happening and what I did to prevent it.
Previous App Flow:
App opens & constructor is called. This calls into the initialization routine above.
User logs in.
First instance of IMemberViewModel resolved using static container.
A message pops up asking the user for Push Notifications Permissions
When this happens, the app OnSleep is called (iOS)
After the user selects an answer, OnResume is called.
OnResume calls initialization routine
New container created.
Call to load data happens on old container, new pages reference new container.
Issue arises as described above.
Correction to the flow:
First, from what I can tell the init calls do not need to be made on resume and/or start if made in the app constructor. If the app is "killed" because other apps need the memory space, a fresh version of the app will be created on next launch (see the Android Activity Lifecycle and the iOS App Lifecycle).
Second, because I'm paranoid and because it can't hurt, in the app init routine I am now checking to determine whether the container exists and whether the interface is already registered.
public static void Init(ISetup setup)
{
if (Container != null && IsModelRegistered()) return;
RegisterDependencies(setup);
…
}
private static bool IsModelRegistered()
{
return Container.IsRegistered<IMemberViewModel>();
}
With MR_contextForCurrentThread not being safe for Operations (and being deprecated), Im trying to ensure I understand the best pattern for series of read/writes in a concurrent operations.
It's been advised to use saveWithBlock for storing new records, and presumably deletion, which provides a context for use. The Count and fetch methods can be given a context, but still use MR_contextForCurrentThread by default.
Is the safest pattern to obtain a context using [NSManagedObjectContext MR_context] at the start of the operation, and use it for all actions. The operation depends on some async work, but not long running. Then perform a MR_saveToPersistentStoreWithCompletion when the operation is finished?
What's the reason for using an NSOperation? There are two options here:
Use MagicalRecord's background saving blocks:
[MagicalRecord saveWithBlock:^(NSManagedObjectContext *localContext) {
// Do your task for the background thread here
}];
The other option is (as you've already tried) to bundle it up into an NSOperation. Yes, I would cache an instance of a private queue context using [NSManagedObjectContext MR_newContext] (sorry, I deprecated the MR_context method this afternoon in favour of a clearer alternative). Be aware that unless you manually merge changes from other contexts, the private queue context that you create will be a snapshot of the parent context at the point in time that you created it. Generally that's not a problem for short running background tasks.
Managed Object Contexts are really lightweight and cheap to create — whenever you're about to do work on any thread other than the main thread, just initialise and use a new context. It keeps things simple. Personally, I favour the + saveWithBlock: and associated methods — they're just simple.
Hope that helps!
You can't use saveWithBlock from multiple threads (concurrent NSOperations) if you want to:
rely on create by primary attribute feature of Magical Record
rely on automatic establishment of relationships (which relies on primary attribute)
manually fetch/MR_find objects and do save based on result of it
This is because whenever you use saveWithBlock new local context created, so that multiple context created in the same time and they don't know about changes in each other. As Tony mentioned localContext is a snapshot of rootContext and changes goes only in one direction, from localContext to rootContext, but not vice versa.
Here is thread-save (or even consistency-safe in terms of MagicalRecord) method that synchronizes calls to saveWithBlock:
#implementation MagicalRecord (MyActions)
+ (void) my_saveWithBlock:(void(^)(NSManagedObjectContext *localContext))block completion:(MRSaveCompletionHandler)completion;
{
static dispatch_semaphore_t semaphore;
static dispatch_once_t once;
dispatch_once(&once, ^{
semaphore = dispatch_semaphore_create(1);
});
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{
dispatch_semaphore_wait(semaphore, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
[MagicalRecord saveWithBlock:block
completion:^(BOOL success, NSError *error) {
dispatch_semaphore_signal(semaphore);
if (completion){
completion(success, error);
}
}];
});
}
#end
I suspect a problem with an old version of the ObjectBuilder which once was part of the WCSF Extension project and meanwhile moved into Unity. I am not sure whether I am on the right way or not so I hope someone out there has more competent thread-safety skills to explain whether this could be an issue or not.
I use this (outdated) ObjectBuilder implementation in an ASP.Net WCSF web app and rarely I can see in the logs that the ObjectBuilder is complaining that a particular property of a class cannot be injected for some reason, the problem is always that this property should never been injected at all. Property and class are changing constantly. I traced the code down to a method where a dictionary is used to hold the information whether a property is handled by the ObjectBuilder or not.
My question basically comes down to: Is there a thread-safety issue in the following code which could cause the ObjectBuilder to get inconsistent data from its dictionary?
The class which holds this code (ReflectionStrategy.cs) is created as Singleton, so all requests to my web application use this class to create its view/page objects. Its dictionary is a private field, only used in this method and declared like that:
private Dictionary<int, bool> _memberRequiresProcessingCache = new Dictionary<int, bool>();
private bool InnerMemberRequiresProcessing(IReflectionMemberInfo<TMemberInfo> member)
{
bool requires;
lock (_readLockerMrp)
{
if (!_memberRequiresProcessingCache.TryGetValue(member.MemberInfo.GetHashCode(), out requires))
{
lock (_writeLockerMrp)
{
if (!_memberRequiresProcessingCache.TryGetValue(member.MemberInfo.GetHashCode(), out requires))
{
requires = MemberRequiresProcessing(member);
_memberRequiresProcessingCache.Add(member.MemberInfo.GetHashCode(), requires);
}
}
}
}
return requires;
}
This code above is not the latest version you can find on Codeplex but I still want to know whether it might be the cause of my ObjectBuilder exceptions. While we speak I work on an update to get this old code replaced by the latest version. This is the latest implementation, unfortunately I cannot find any information why it has been changed. Might be for a bug, might be for performance...
private bool InnerMemberRequiresProcessing(IReflectionMemberInfo<TMemberInfo> member)
{
bool requires;
if (!_memberRequiresProcessingCache.TryGetValue(member.MemberInfo, out requires))
{
lock (_writeLockerMrp)
{
if (!_memberRequiresProcessingCache.TryGetValue(member.MemberInfo, out requires))
{
Dictionary<TMemberInfo, bool> tempMemberRequiresProcessingCache =
new Dictionary<TMemberInfo, bool>(_memberRequiresProcessingCache);
requires = MemberRequiresProcessing(member);
tempMemberRequiresProcessingCache.Add(member.MemberInfo, requires);
_memberRequiresProcessingCache = tempMemberRequiresProcessingCache;
}
}
}
return requires;
}
The use of the hash code looks problematic if you run a very large number of classes / members, as can happen with the singleton approach you mentioned.
The double lock was totally odd in the old one (Only one thread goes into the whole section in all cases). Note that locking as the first thing certainly hurts performance. It is a trade of, notice that instead they create a copy to avoid modifying the list as it is being read.
in Flex 3.2 Having troubles converting remote object result to specific object on client side in modules.
For example I have VIPSAdmin module.
it has function
private function doResult(event:ResultEvent):void {
var data_:Array = ArrayUtil.toArray(event.result);
var result:ResultDTO = data_[0] as ResultDTO;
if(!result.isError()) {
trace(result.result);
vipsAdminDTO = result.result as VIPSAdmin;
compId= vipsAdminDTO.compId; // second time dying here
}
}
Function invoked when I get data from remote objet.
First time all great,when I unload this modeule and load it again:
data_[0] as ResultDTO;
Performs fine, but
vipsAdminDTO = result.result as VIPSAdmin;
vipsAdminDTO always null!
Even when
trace(result.result);
produces [object VIPSAdmin]
What a heck I missing here!? Looks like it just cannot do
result.result as VIPSAdmin;
even when trace and debug says it is instance of VIPSAdmin
I've figured out what is the problem, problem is that when I first instantiate something in module then in main app, somehow classes are not alined even that they are identical !
So solution is to make a fake instance in application class first, then if you use that same class to make an instance in module it will work!
I do it very simple in my main application class I just added:
VIPSAdmin;
This seems to create some sort of ghost instance, which I belie will be pickup by GC later, but will build tables of instances properly! Which solved my problem.
Not sure if this is appropriate solution ! but it sure works.
I was wondering how TransactionScope class works to keep the transaction between different method calls (without the need to pass it as a parameter) and I came to this doubt. I've got two considerations about this question:
1
Looking into TransactionScope's implementation through Telerik JustDecompile, I've found that the current transaction is stored in a ThreadStatic member of the System.Transactions.ContextData class (code below).
internal class ContextData
{
internal TransactionScope CurrentScope;
internal Transaction CurrentTransaction;
internal DefaultComContextState DefaultComContextState;
[ThreadStatic]
private static ContextData staticData;
internal WeakReference WeakDefaultComContext;
internal static ContextData CurrentData
{
get
{
ContextData contextDatum = ContextData.staticData;
if (contextDatum == null)
{
contextDatum = new ContextData();
ContextData.staticData = contextDatum;
}
return contextDatum;
}
}
public ContextData()
{
}
}
The CurrentData property is called by TransactionScope's PushScope() method, and the last one is used by most of the TransactionScope constructors.
private void PushScope()
{
if (!this.interopModeSpecified)
{
this.interopOption = Transaction.InteropMode(this.savedCurrentScope);
}
this.SetCurrent(this.expectedCurrent);
this.threadContextData.CurrentScope = this;
}
public TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption scopeOption)
{
// ...
this.PushScope();
// ...
}
Ok, I guess I've found how they do that.
2
I've read about how bad is to use ThreadStatic members to store objects within ASP.NET (http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ATaleOfTwoTechniquesTheThreadStaticAttributeAndSystemWebHttpContextCurrentItems.aspx) due the ASP.NET thread switching that might occur, so this data can be lost among the worker threads.
So, it looks like TransactionScope should not work with ASP.NET, right? But as far I have used it on my web applications, I don't remember any problem that I've run into about transaction data being lost.
My question here is "what's the TransactionScope's trick to deal with ASP.NET's thread switching?".
Did I make a superficial analysis on how TransactionScope stores its transaction objects? Or TransactionScope class wasn't made to work with ASP.NET, and I can be considered a lucky guy that never had any pain about it?
Could anyone who knows the "very deep buried secrets" of .NET explain that for me?
Thanks
I believe ASP.NET thread switching happens only in specific situations (involving asych IO operations) and early in the request life cycle. Typically, once the control is passed to the actual http handler (for example, Page), thread does not get switched. I believe that in most of situation, transaction scope will get initialized only after that (after page_init/load) and should not be an issue.
Here are few links that might interest you:
http://piers7.blogspot.com/2005/11/threadstatic-callcontext-and_02.html
http://piers7.blogspot.com/2005/12/log4net-context-problems-with-aspnet.html