ServiceStack has support for OpenAPI and can generate an OpenAPI spec. However, for APIs/endpoints to be generated in the spec, it is not enough to specify the API details using the Route attributes as described here, you also need to create the Service classes that (eventually) implement the functionality.
Is there a way to make the OpenAPI specification include everything without having to create the Service classes that go with them?
The reason is that sometimes you just want to work on the specification, not implementation (even though you can just skip implementation details and throw a NotImplementedException), and creating those Service classes just to get the spec to show is annoying.
If it doesn't have an implementation it's not a Service and therefore wont have any of ServiceStack's metadata or features available for it.
If you want to skip their implementation you can just create stub implementations for them, e.g:
public class MyServices : Service
{
public object Any(MyRequest1 request) => null;
public object Any(MyRequest2 request) => null;
public object Any(MyRequest3 request) => null;
}
Related
I am using E-signature C# SDK to integrate with DocuSign Api's from my .NET6 based API. As per the documentation ApiClient is instantiated like var client = new ApiClient("base address") .
Is there way to use the middleware to create an instance of the ApiClient so that I can only instantiate it once and inject it in my class, to call the SDK methods.
There are multiple constructors you can use.
You can just do new ApiClient() which defaults the basePath to be https://www.docusign.net/restapi
You can also use a Configuration object and pass that to the constructor instead of a basePath.
The most advanced constructor is this:
public ApiClient(string basePath, string oAuthBasePath, WebProxy proxy = null)
This one allows you to specify a different oAuthBasePath and even a WebProxy should you need one.
However, I assume you're actually asking about using dependency injection so that you can have your controllers pass along the singleton.
As it stands right now ApiClient is not implementing any Interface, so you cannot do it directly.
You can create your own class that extends ApiClient, implements some new interface you provide and then you'll be able to get this capability.
You can also take the code for the C# SDK and modify it to be an interface (IApiClient would probably be the name you want to use)
I'd like to define an interface on some of my servicestack service model request dto objects. I've defined the interface in my service model project and added it to the dto objects.
But in the client application when I use the "Update Service Stack Reference" function with the Visual Studio plugin, my interface definitions are not being added to my DTOs.
Previously the only interfaces included in the Add ServiceStack Reference feature are existing interfaces defined in the dep-free ServiceStack.Interfaces.dll to reduce coupling with external libraries but support for exporting (non-generic) implemented interfaces were just added from v4.5.13 which is now available on MyGet.
An alternative to having interfaces generated is including them in partial class that sits alongside the generated DTOs which define the interfaces you want each DTO to share, e.g:
public partial class MyDto : IMyInterface {}
The previous behavior of not exporting implemented interfaces can be reverted with:
var nativeTypes = this.GetPlugin<NativeTypesFeature>();
nativeTypes.MetadataTypesConfig.ExcludeImplementedInterfaces = true;
I'm curious why the decision was made to couple the Service base class in ServiceStack to data access (via the Db property)? With web services it is very popular to use a Data Repository pattern to fetch the raw data from the database. These data repositories can be used by many services without having to call a service class.
For example, let's say I am supporting a large retail chain that operates across the nation. There are a number of settings that will differ across all stores like tax rates. Each call to one of the web services will need these settings for domain logic. In a repository pattern I would simply create a data access class whose sole responsibility is to return these settings. However in ServiceStack I am exposing these settings as a Service (which it needs to be as well). In my service call the first thing I end up doing is newing up the Setting service and using it inside my other service. Is this the intention? Since the services return an object I have to cast the result to the typed service result.
ServiceStack convenience ADO.NET IDbConnection Db property allows you to quickly create Database driven services (i.e. the most popular kind) without the overhead and boilerplate of creating a repository if preferred. As ServiceStack Services are already testable and the DTO pattern provides a clean endpoint agnostic Web Service interface, there's often not a lot of value in wrapping and proxying "one-off" data-access into a separate repository.
But at the same time there's nothing forcing you to use the base.Db property, (which has no effect if unused). The Unit Testing Example on the wiki shows an example of using either base.Db or Repository pattern:
public class SimpleService : Service
{
public IRockstarRepository RockstarRepository { get; set; }
public List<Rockstar> Get(FindRockstars request)
{
return request.Aged.HasValue
? Db.Select<Rockstar>(q => q.Age == request.Aged.Value)
: Db.Select<Rockstar>();
}
public RockstarStatus Get(GetStatus request)
{
var rockstar = RockstarRepository.GetByLastName(request.LastName);
if (rockstar == null)
throw HttpError.NotFound("'{0}' is no Rockstar".Fmt(request.LastName));
var status = new RockstarStatus
{
Alive = RockstarRepository.IsAlive(request.LastName)
}.PopulateWith(rockstar); //Populates with matching fields
return status;
}
}
Note: Returning an object or a strong-typed DTO response like RockstarStatus have the same effect in ServiceStack, so if preferred you can return a strong typed response and avoid any casting.
Was wondering if there's a recommended best-practice way of grouping similar services together in what's becoming a larger and larger project. Say that most of my services can be lumped in either dealing with "Pro" data or "Amateur" data (the data goes way beyond a simple flag in a table, the data itself is totally different, from different tables, on the pro or amateur side.
I know I can add routes to my classes...
/pro/service1
/am/service2
It looks like I can put the DTOs in namespaces....
What about the Service.Interface items (Service and Factory classes). Would you put those into namespaces also?
Finally, is there a way for the metadata page to reflect these groupings? I started to go down this road, but all the services listed out in alphabetical order, and you couldn't see the route or namespace differences between service1 and service2.
thank you
If you want, you can split multiple Service implementations across multiple dlls as described on the Modularizing Services wiki.
You can safely group service implementation classes into any nested folder groupings without having any impact to the external services. But changing the namespaces on DTO's can have an effect if your DTO's make use of object, interfaces or abstract classes which emit type info containing full namespaces.
In ServiceStack v4.09+ (now on MyGet) the MetadataFeature includes the ability to customize the ordering of the metadata page, e.g you can reverse the order of the metadata pages with:
var metadata = (MetadataFeature)Plugins.First(x => x is MetadataFeature);
metadata.IndexPageFilter = page => {
page.OperationNames.Sort((x,y) => y.CompareTo(x));
};
Organising your large project:
For a complex service(s) I setup 4 projects in one solution.
AppHost, This takes care of the configuration of the service. (References Model, Service and Types)
Model, This is the database model (Does not reference other projects)
Service, This is the implementation of the service only, not the interfaces or DTOs (References Model and Types)
Types, This includes my Interfaces, DTOs and routes. (Does not reference other projects)
Having a separate Types library allows the distribution to clients, for example for use with the ServiceStack JsonServiceClient.
Yes you can namespace the Interfaces, DTOs and factory classes, any way you want. They will work as long as they are referenced in your service correctly.
If you are trying to separate more than one service, you should consider separating your service code into logical folders within the Service project. i.e.
/Service/Pro
/Service/Amateur
Wrap the outer code of your Service methods in a public partial static class MyServiceStackApplication, with an appropriate name. Then reference this as the assembly in the AppHost constructor. So for example:
Pro Service (Service Project/Pro/UserActions.cs)
public partial static class MyServiceStackApplication
{
public partial class Pro
{
public class UserActionsService : Service
{
public User Get(GetUserRequest request)
{
}
}
// ...
}
}
Pro Service (Service Project/Pro/OtherActions.cs)
public partial static class MyServiceStackApplication
{
public partial class Pro
{
public class OtherActionsService : Service
{
public Other Get(GetOtherRequest request)
{
}
}
// ...
}
}
Amateur Service (Service Project/Am/UserActions.cs)
public partial static class MyServiceStackApplication
{
public partial class Amateur
{
public class UserActionsService : Service
{
public User Get(GetUserRequest request)
{
}
}
// ...
}
}
etc.
You can see from the above code we can have multiple files, all separated out and organised, but one assembly for ServiceStack to reference in the AppHost:
public AppHost() : base("Pro & Amateur Services", typeof(MyServiceStackApplication).Assembly) {}
Using the reference to the MyServiceStackApplication assembly, and using the partial keyword allows you to organise the code into manageable groupings.
Metadata:
Unfortunately separating the metadata by namespace isn't supported. You could try and customize the MetaDataFeature yourself, but it does seem like a useful feature, being able to separate multiple services where they are hosted in the one ServiceStack application. I would suggest you raise a feature request.
Mythz is bringing out features faster than lightning. :) Seems like he has that covered in the next release and you should be able to apply a custom filter to HostContext.Metadata.OperationNamesMap.
I have question about how to make service assemblies pluggable (read them from config file) into the ServiceStack.
I want to register my services assemblies from configuration file and not to hard code them in the AppHost constructor like this:
public appHost() : base("My Pluggable Web Services", typeof(ServiceAssembly1).Assembly, typeof(AnotherServiceAssembly).Assembly) { }
I couldn't find other way to register the assemblies outside of this constructor. The constructor also accepts params and does not have overload for example with IEnumerable<Assembly> as parameter.
The idea is to be able to plug service assemblies without touching the service stack REST web site.
I looked at the Plugin interface but I think it is more suitable to be used to extend the service stack not to dynamically plug service assemblies.
Are there any way to implement such pluggable service assemblies feature with the current service stack release? Can you also add constructor overload that will accept the array of assembly?
Thank you in advance
The purpose of your ServiceStack's AppHost is to be a bespoke class customized for your solution that has hard references to all your service dependencies. It's much easier to verify your application is configured correctly, at build time if you declare your dependencies in code as opposed to un-typed configuration.
Having said that you can override the strategy that ServiceStack uses to discover your Service types by overriding AppHostBase.CreateServiceManager():
protected virtual ServiceManager CreateServiceManager(params Assembly[] assembliesWithServices)
{
return new ServiceManager(assembliesWithServices);
//Alternative way to inject Container + Service Resolver strategy
//return new ServiceManager(new Container(),
// new ServiceController(() => assembliesWithServices.ToList().SelectMany(x => x.GetTypes())));
}
Otherwise you can still do what you want by just passing your assemblies into your AppHost, e.g:
var appHost = new AppHost("Service Name", MyConfig.LoadAssembliesFromConfig());
(new AppHost()).Init();