I have common code which is require in other Azure functions, how can I share the common code among the Azure functions?
If the Functions you are wanting to share code between are under the same Function App you can do the following:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/39541156/2854993
And if they are separate Function Apps, I asked a similar question - see:
Azure Functions - Shared code across Function Apps
I managed to get shared code to work (or rather: compile) using an Azure Function Tools for Visual Studio project. In case of the screenshot, the shared library is actualy another Function project. I also tried to work with class libraries: those seem to work as well.
Haven't gotten around to deploying it yet, by the way. Running (and debugging) it localy is not an issue, so I guess deploying shouldn't be one either.
Related
(If this question is poorly worded, could someone please help me clear it up?)
I have an Azure Function (2.0) which relies on some System.Drawing code. I've added a NuGet reference to System.Drawing.Common (4.5.0).
After publishing the app, however, when the function is called, it produces the error:
System.Private.CoreLib: Exception while executing function:
[MyFunctionName]. System.Drawing.Common: System.Drawing is not
supported on this platform.
As far as I'm aware, System.Drawing.Common is supported on .NET Core now, which I believe is the environment in which my Azure Function is running. The actual project is a .NET Standard 2.0 project, though.
I am confused as to how to resolve this. I've tried converting the project to a .NET Core 2.1 project but that led to bizarre errors related to "Metadata generation failed" and an inability to find System.Runtime.
My project references Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.EventGrid (2.0.0-beta2) if that's relevant.
It's not about the CLR, it's about the sandbox.
System.Drawing relies heavily on GDI/GDI+ to do its thing. Because of the somewhat risky nature of those APIs (large attack surface) they are restricted in the App Service sandbox.
Win32k.sys (User32/GDI32) Restrictions
For the sake of radical attack surface area reduction, the sandbox prevents almost all of the Win32k.sys APIs from being called, which practically means that most of User32/GDI32 system calls are blocked. For most applications this is not an issue since most Azure Web Apps do not require access to Windows UI functionality (they are web applications after all).
Try to find an different library that doesn't rely on System.Drawing/GDI, like ImageSharp.
A little update can help a lot of people.
Now you can switch your Azure Function to v3:
in Function app settings panel -> Runtime version ~3
With this setup, your code run in a sandbox that support Core 3, (you don't need to rebuild your dll to Core3, i run my .net core 2.1 dll without errors), and surprise... you don't get this exception anymore:
System.Drawing.Common: System.Drawing is not supported on this platform.
Because the CLI can found GDI/GDI+ that need in the subsystem.
Now i can convert html to pdf without go crazy.
I'm currently developing a small game that will rely on a lot Azure App Functions to execute function from time to time. I followed a tutorial on MSDN (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/functions-develop-vs#configure-the-project-for-local-development) explaining that I had to create a new project to host a function but so far, I already have 6 different functions and I don't really want to create 6 different projects.
Moreover, all these functions (developed in JavaScript) have a lot of code in common so I created a common JavaScript file with some helper function. Now that I have multiple projects, I can't use it anymore without copy/pasting it in all projects.
Finally, to be able to correctly develop the game, all the functions must be running in parallel on my development machine and I don't really want to open 6 (or more in the future) powershell instances to host these functions.
Is there a way to host multiple functions in the same project and deploy them easily on Azure ?
That's what Function Apps are for. Each Function App may contain multiple Functions, which will be deployed together.
You mention Javascript, but the linked tutorial is in C#. Regardless, you can put multiple functions into the same app: subfolders under the same root (where host.json file is), or static methods in the same C# project. Each function will have a separate function.json file. All functions can share the same code.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how we're supposed to build Azure functions.
I love the idea of building serverless, compact, single-function apps that respond to events.
Here are the problems I'm running into:
I have nice class libraries built in .NET Standard 2 that handle all my "backend needs" namely handling CRUD ops with Cosmos Db, Azure Table Storage, Azure SQL, Redis, Azure Storage. No matter what I did, I couldn't integrate these class libraries into an Azure Functions project. More details below.
Also, getting dependency injection in Azure Functions project has proven to be quite a task -- especially with my class libraries mentioned above.
At this point, the only option I'm seeing is to "copy and paste" code into a new Azure Functions project and use it without any DI.
This seems to go against "best practices". So what's the solution other than either to create monolithic code or wait till Azure Functions support .NET Core and DI.
I thought I could use my .NET Standard class libraries from a regular Azure Functions project targeting .NET Framework. After all, the idea of .NET Standard is to "standardize" things. I opened a couple of posts here on SO. I'm providing the links so that you can see the issues I've run into:
Using .NET Core 2.0 Libraries in WebJob Targeting .NET Framework 4.7
No parameterless constructor error in WebJobs with .NET Core and Ninject
P.S. My previous posts are referring to WebJobs. That was plan B approach because WebJobs seem half a step ahead of Azure Functions when it comes to supporting things like .NET Core and DI. Ultimately, I'd like to build a few Azure Functions that can use my class libraries built in .NET Standard 2.
Also, my previous posts mention that my class libraries target .NET Core 2.0. Since then I converted them to .NET Standard 2 which didn't really take much at all. I did this so that I truly conform to .NET Standard 2.
One issue is that Visual Studio has an outdated version of the Functions Core tools. Until this is resolved, you can work around in the following way:
Install the latest via npm by running npm install -g azure-functions-core-tools
In your Function App in VS, go to the Properties
Go to Debug, and click New... under Profile
Name the new Profile something like FunctionsNpm
Set the executable to (replace [YourUserName]): C:\Users\[YourUserName]\AppData\Roaming\npm\node_modules\azure-functions-core-tools\bin\func.exe
Set the arguments to host start
Set the working directory to $(TargetDir)
In toolbar, look for the green triangle icon to change your current Profile to the one you just created:
Now when you run from VS, you'll be using the npm tools instead of the older one that come with the VS package.
.NET Standard 2 support is on its way, see this github issue.
Is there a way of sharing common code across two different Function Apps in Azure?
I understand it is possible to share code between two functions under the same Function App like so:
#load "../Shared/ServiceLogger.csx"
but I would like to share logging code between two different functions, each under it's own Function App. The reason for the functions being under two different Function Apps is that I need one to run on the Consumption plan and the other run on an App Service plan, unless there is another way of doing this?
There is no straightforward way to share code across app boundary in Azure App Sercice, and this holds true both for Function Apps and Web Apps. You will need to deploy the relevant code into each app that needs it.
What I did to get around this before the fix in VS17 Preview (which treats functions as normal cs files and allows project references) is I had a shared class project that had a post build event that would put the dlls into the Azure function projects in a folder. Then reference them with #r "file path to the dll"
One way to reuse code is to use precompiled assemblies / class libraries with your Functions. Donna Malayeri has published a blog post explaining how to achieve this: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/appserviceteam/2017/03/16/publishing-a-net-class-library-as-a-function-app/
Consequently, you could have 2 or more different Functions, deployed to different AppServices or Function instances sharing the same code through a class library. Precompiled assemblies are supported in .NET C# Functions and you can do something similar using WebPack in Node.js based Functions
I'm designing a new architecture in Azure. It's a multi-tenant SaaS application with an ASP.NET MVC front end and some application specific data in blob storage. I need to perform some background processing on this application data at certain points. This is currently only possible using some legacy C++ code (I can't realistically rewrite this in C#).
One thought I had was to push any background jobs onto a queue and use Azure functions to service the queue as and when a job gets pushed onto it. The sticking point is the native code. I can certainly expose methods in the native code that C# can p/invoke, but can Azure functions call onto native DLLs and if so is this a sensible approach?
The code does run in a sandbox, but this approach should work. (you may want to consider exposing the relevant API in a managed assembly that would in turn be consumed by your function).
Whether you'll run into limitations with the sandbox is dependent on what your code is doing, but you can learn more about the sandbox and its restrictions here: https://github.com/projectkudu/kudu/wiki/Azure-Web-App-sandbox
I hope this helps!
mfcu100.dll likely depends on some other DLL inside the VC++ 2010 Redist
Most probably msvcr100.dll and msvcp100.dll.
If you include all the dependency DLLs along with your native binary, it should work.