Castle Windsor Interceptor - adding a HTTP Header - c#-4.0

I'm trying to add an interceptor to just add a simple HTTP header, is there a nice way of doing this using IInvocation?
I've had a look around and can't see any examples of it, or via a WcfPolicy. An example of what I'm trying to do is below..
Cheers,
Jamie
public void Intercept(IInvocation invocation)
{
Guard.NotNull(() => invocation, invocation);
invocation.Proceed();
AddVersionHeaders(invocation);
}
private static void AddVersionHeaders(IInvocation invocation)
{
using (var scope = new OperationContextScope(OperationContext.Current))
{
OperationContext.Current.OutgoingMessageProperties[HttpRequestMessageProperty.Name] = new HttpRequestMessageProperty
{
Headers =
{
{
"X-Version", invocation.TargetType.Assembly.GetName().Version.ToString()
}
}
};
}
}

In the end, just went with adding it in each Global.asax, would have been nice to have it in a library but perhaps simplicity over reuse is the best option.

Related

SwaggerRequestExample attribute does not work in ASP.NET MVC 5 (.NET Framework 4.5.2)

I am toying with Swashbuckle.Examples package (3.10.0) in an ASP.NET MVC project. However, I cannot make request examples appear within the UI.
Configuration (SwaggerConfig.cs)
public static void Register()
{
var thisAssembly = typeof(SwaggerConfig).Assembly;
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration
.EnableSwagger(c => {
c.SingleApiVersion("v1", "TestApp.Web");
c.IncludeXmlComments(string.Format(#"{0}\bin\TestApp.Web.xml", System.AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory));
c.OperationFilter<ExamplesOperationFilter>();
c.OperationFilter<DescriptionOperationFilter>();
c.OperationFilter<AppendAuthorizeToSummaryOperationFilter>();
})
.EnableSwaggerUi(c => { });
}
Request example classes
public class EchoRequestExample : IExamplesProvider
{
public object GetExamples()
{
return new EchoInput { Value = 7 } ;
}
}
public class EchoInput
{
public int Value { get; set; }
}
Action
[HttpGet]
[Route("Echo")]
[CustomApiAuthorize]
[SwaggerRequestExample(typeof(EchoInput), typeof(EchoRequestExample))]
[ResponseType(typeof(EchoServiceModel))]
public HttpResponseMessage Echo([FromUri] EchoInput model)
{
var ret = new EchoServiceModel
{
Username = RequestContext.Principal.Identity.Name,
Value = value
};
return Request.CreateResponse(HttpStatusCode.OK, ret);
}
Swagger UI shows xml comments and output metadata (model and an example containing default values), but shows no request example. I attached to process and EchoRequestExample.GetExamples is not hit.
Question: How to make SwaggerRequestExample attribute work in ASP.NET MVC 5?
Note: Windows identity is used for authorization.
I received an answer from library owner here:
Swagger request examples can only set on [HttpPost] actions
It is not clear if this is a design choice or just a limitation, as I find [HttpGet] examples also relevant.
I know the feeling, lot's of overhead just for an example, I struggle with this for a while, so I created my own fork of swashbuckle, and after unsuccessful attempts to merge my ideas I ended up detaching and renaming my project and pushed to nuget, here it is: Swagger-Net
An example like that will be:
[SwaggerExample("id", "123456")]
public IHttpActionResult GetById(int id)
{
Here the full code for that: Swagger_Test/Controllers/IHttpActionResultController.cs#L26
Wondering how that looks like on the Swagger-UI, here it is:
http://swagger-net-test.azurewebsites.net/swagger/ui/index?filter=IHttpActionResult#/IHttpActionResult/IHttpActionResult_GetById

Is it possible to exclude a url from Application Insights?

We have an Azure web role deployed that has been using Application Insights (ver. 1.0.0.4220), however, we're going over our data quota. Is it possible to configure Application Insights ignore a specific URL?
We have a status web service that gets a huge amount of traffic but never throws any errors. If I could exclude this one service URL I could cut my data usage in half.
Out of the box it is not supported. Sampling feature is coming but that would not be configurable by specific url. You can implement your own channel that would have your custom filtering. Basically your channel will get event to be sent, you check if you want to send it or not and then if yes pass to standard AI channel. Here you can read more about custom channels.
There are two things that changed since this blog post has been written:
channel should implement only ITelemetryChannel interface (ISupportConfiguration was removed)
and instead of PersistenceChannel you should use Microsoft.ApplicationInsights.Extensibility.Web.TelemetryChannel
UPDATE: Latest version has filtering support: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/request-filtering-in-application-insights-with-telemetry-processor/
My team had a similiar situation where we needed to filter out urls that were successful image requests (we had a lot of these which made us hit the 30k datapoints/min limit).
We ended up using a modified version of the class in Sergey Kanzhelevs blog post to filter these out.
We created a RequestFilterChannel class which is an instance of ServerTelemetryChannel and extended the Send method. In this method we test each telemetry item to be sent to see if it is an image request and if so, we prevent it from being sent.
public class RequestFilterChannel : ITelemetryChannel, ITelemetryModule
{
private ServerTelemetryChannel channel;
public RequestFilterChannel()
{
this.channel = new ServerTelemetryChannel();
}
public void Initialize(TelemetryConfiguration configuration)
{
this.channel.Initialize(configuration);
}
public void Send(ITelemetry item)
{
if (item is RequestTelemetry)
{
var requestTelemetry = (RequestTelemetry) item;
if (requestTelemetry.Success && isImageRequest((RequestTelemetry) item))
{
// do nothing
}
else
{
this.channel.Send(item);
}
}
else
{
this.channel.Send(item);
}
}
public bool? DeveloperMode
{
get { return this.channel.DeveloperMode; }
set { this.channel.DeveloperMode = value; }
}
public string EndpointAddress
{
get { return this.channel.EndpointAddress; }
set { this.channel.EndpointAddress = value; }
}
public void Flush()
{
this.channel.Flush();
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.channel.Dispose();
}
private bool IsImageRequest(RequestTelemetry request)
{
if (request.Url.AbsolutePath.StartsWith("/image.axd"))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Once the class has been created you need to add it to your ApplicationInsights.config file.
Replace this line:
<TelemetryChannel Type="Microsoft.ApplicationInsights.WindowsServer.TelemetryChannel.ServerTelemetryChannel, Microsoft.AI.ServerTelemetryChannel"/>
with a link to your class:
<TelemetryChannel Type="XXX.RequestFilterChannel, XXX" />
Alternatively, you can disable the automated request collection and keep only exception auto-collection, just remove the RequestTrackingModule line from applicationinsights.config.
If you still need to collect some of the requests, not just filter all out, you can then call TrackRequest() (in the object of TelemetryClient class) from your code in the appropriate place after you know that you certainly need to log this request to AI.
Update: Filtering feature has been released some time ago and allows for exclusion of certain telemetry items way easier.

Do the Request filters get run from BasicAppHost?

I know that the services get wired-up by instantiating the BasicAppHost, and the IoC by using the ConfigureContainer property, but where is the right place to add the filters? The test in question never fire the global filter:
[TestFixture]
public class IntegrationTests
{
private readonly ServiceStackHost _appHost;
public IntegrationTests()
{
_appHost = new BasicAppHost(typeof(MyServices).Assembly)
{
ConfigureContainer = container =>
{
//
}
};
_appHost.Plugins.Add(new ValidationFeature());
_appHost.Config = new HostConfig { DebugMode = true };
_appHost.GlobalRequestFilters.Add(ITenantRequestFilter);
_appHost.Init();
}
private void ITenantRequestFilter(IRequest req, IResponse res, object dto)
{
var forTennant = dto as IForTenant;
if (forTennant != null)
RequestContext.Instance.Items.Add("TenantId", forTennant.TenantId);
}
[TestFixtureTearDown]
public void TestFixtureTearDown()
{
_appHost.Dispose();
}
[Test]
public void CanInvokeHelloServiceRequest()
{
var service = _appHost.Container.Resolve<MyServices>();
var response = (HelloResponse)service.Any(new Hello { Name = "World" });
Assert.That(response.Result, Is.EqualTo("Hello, World!"));
}
[Test]
public void CanInvokeFooServiceRequest()
{
var service = _appHost.Container.Resolve<MyServices>();
var lead = new Lead
{
TenantId = "200"
};
var response = service.Post(lead); //Does not fire filter.
}
}
ServiceStack is set at 4.0.40
Updated
After perusing the ServiceStack tests (which I highly recommend BTW) I came across a few example of the AppHost being used AND tested. It looks like the "ConfigureAppHost" property is the right place to configure the filters, e.g.
ConfigureAppHost = host =>
{
host.Plugins.Add(new ValidationFeature());
host.GlobalRequestFilters.Add(ITenantRequestFilter);
},
ConfigureContainer = container =>
{
}
Updated1
And they still don't fire.
Updated2
After a bit of trial and error I think it's safe to say that NO, the filters are not hooked up while using the BasicAppHost. What I have done to solve my problem was to switch these tests to use a class that inherits from AppSelfHostBase, and use the c# servicestack clients to invoke the methods on my service. THIS does cause the global filters to be executed.
Thank you,
Stephen
No the Request and Response filters only fire for Integration Tests where the HTTP Request is executed through the HTTP Request Pipeline. If you need to test the full request pipeline you'd need to use a Self-Hosting Integration test.
Calling a method on a Service just does that, i.e. it's literally just making a C# method call on a autowired Service - there's no intermediate proxy magic intercepting the call in between.

"error": "invalid_client" from custom OWIN implementation

I am implementing OWIN authentication on a mysql backend, I dont thnk thats a problem as my registration work pretty well. I have basically worked off this post (i.e. nicked most of the code).
I am also using DI via autofac so I have changed a few things around to inject dependencies into the SimpleAuthorizationServerProvider
THE PROBLEM
I post grant_type=password, username and password to http://localhost/myappurl/token and I get back "error":"invalid_client". I get no hits when I try to debug so its probably failing in the library and not getting to my own code. Does anyone know why this would be?
Please pardon the lengthy code, I have no idea where the issue could be so I have posted everything I think is relevant, if anyone needs to see more code, please ask.
SimpleAuthorizationServerProvider
public class SimpleAuthorizationServerProvider : OAuthAuthorizationServerProvider
{
private readonly IUserService _userService;
public SimpleAuthorizationServerProvider(IUserService userService)
{
_userService = userService;
}
public override async Task ValidateClientAuthentication(OAuthValidateClientAuthenticationContext context)
{
context.Validated();
}
public override async Task GrantResourceOwnerCredentials(OAuthGrantResourceOwnerCredentialsContext context)
{
context.OwinContext.Response.Headers.Add("Access-Control-Allow-Origin", new[] { "*" });
var authenticate = await _userService.FindUser(context.UserName, context.Password);
if (!authenticate)
{
context.SetError("invalid_grant", "The user name or password is incorrect.");
return;
}
var identity = new ClaimsIdentity(context.Options.AuthenticationType);
identity.AddClaim(new Claim("sub", context.UserName));
identity.AddClaim(new Claim("role", "user"));
context.Validated(identity);
}
}
Startup
public partial class Startup
{
public void ConfigureAuth(IAppBuilder app)
{
HttpConfiguration config = new HttpConfiguration();
ConfigureOAuth(app, (IOAuthAuthorizationServerProvider)config.DependencyResolver.GetService(typeof(IOAuthAuthorizationServerProvider)));
app.UseCors(Microsoft.Owin.Cors.CorsOptions.AllowAll);
app.UseWebApi(config);
}
public void ConfigureOAuth(IAppBuilder app, IOAuthAuthorizationServerProvider provider)
{
OAuthAuthorizationServerOptions OAuthServerOptions = new OAuthAuthorizationServerOptions()
{
AllowInsecureHttp = true,
TokenEndpointPath = new PathString("/token"),
AccessTokenExpireTimeSpan = TimeSpan.FromDays(90),
Provider = provider,
ApplicationCanDisplayErrors=true,
};
app.UseOAuthAuthorizationServer(OAuthServerOptions);
app.UseOAuthBearerAuthentication(new OAuthBearerAuthenticationOptions());
}
}
IocConfig
public static class IocConfig
{
public static void Register(HttpConfiguration config)
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
// Configure the container
// Register individual components
builder.Register(c => new MySQLContext()).As<IMySqlContext>().InstancePerRequest();
builder.RegisterType<SimpleAuthorizationServerProvider>().As<IOAuthAuthorizationServerProvider>();
builder.RegisterApiControllers(Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
var container = builder.Build();
config.DependencyResolver = new AutofacWebApiDependencyResolver(container);
}
}
You have a lot of code there, so it's not easy to isolate the problem. As a first step, consider removing the code for Autofac DI and see if that makes any difference. It's hard to tell what the problem might be otherwise.
If the issue is indeed related to the DI code, then perhaps this should be a raised as a separate question. In that case, try to create a small code example that demonstrates the issue succinctly. People are more likely to help if the problem code is short and to the point.
Make sure that you've set up SSL for your site. I had a similar issue and the problem was that I was not using SSL.

Spring security + remember me question + wicket

I am using wicket 1.4.7 + spring 3.0 + spring security 3.0
Problem is : Spring security authenticate the user via cookie (remember-me service) but Wicket's AuthenticatedWebSession couldn't understand this and populate login panel. How can i solve it ?
Thanks.
Pretty old question, but I just stumbled upon it while research the exact same problem. So if anybody else comes across this, here's my solution.
The problem is that AuthenticatedWebSession#isSignedIn() ignores the SecurityContext and checks it's own boolean flag instead. As it isn't possible to override the final method #isSignedIn(), there has to be a workaround. I've gone for a custom WebRequestCycle overriding #onBeginRequest() to synchronize state just before Wicket starts processing the current request:
// MyApplication.java
public MyApplication extends AuthenticatedWebApplication {
// SNIP
#Override
public RequestCycle newRequestCycle(final Request request, final Response response) {
return new WebRequestCycle(this, (WebRequest) request, (WebResponse) response) {
#Override
protected void onBeginRequest() {
MySession.get().updateSignIn();
}
};
}
}
// MySession.java
public class MySession extends AuthenticatedWebSession {
// SNIP
void updateSignIn() {
Authentication auth = SecurityContextHolder.getContext().getAuthentication();
signIn(auth != null && auth.isAuthenticated());
}
}
Alternatively, AuthenticatedWebSession and AuthenticatedWebApplication could be abandoned alltogether as the rest of wicket-auth-roles doesn't require them. It just takes some code duplication from AuthenticatedWebApplication to make everything work similarly.

Resources