I've installed MVC Site Map Provider for MVC5 and just used everything out of the the box. It works fine. Now I want to implement roles based menu trimming so assuming my controller:
public class Home: Controller
{
[Authorize(Roles="Admin")]
public ActionResult Index()
{
return View();
}
}
Now basically only Admin role users can see the menu. Perfect works fine.
Also to implement this I added to my web.config this line:
<add key="MvcSiteMapProvider_SecurityTrimmingEnabled" value="true" />
The problem is that it works but it's slow. It takes about 7 seconds for the page to load. If I remove the web.config line, basically removing menu trimming based on roles it takes ~300ms for the page to load. Something is wrong in here.
Any ideas why my menu trimming based on roles is slow? I haven't done any customizations.
The security trimming feature relies on creating a controller instance for every node in order to determine if the current user context has access.
The most likely cause of this slowness is that your controllers (or their base class) have too much heavy processing happening in the constructor.
public class HomeController
{
public HomeController() {
// Lots of heavy processing
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(300);
};
}
The above example will add 300 ms to the page load time for every node that represents an action method in the HomeController. If your other controllers also have heavy processing during instantiation, they will also add additional time to each page load.
When following DI best practices, this is not an issue because heavy processing takes place in external services after the controller instance is created.
public interface IHeavyProcessingService
{
IProcessingResult DoSomethingExpensive();
}
public class HeavyProcessingService : IHeavyProcessingService
{
public HeavyProcessingService() {
}
public IProcessingResult DoSomethingExpensive() {
// Lots of heavy processing
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(300);
}
}
public class HomeController
{
private readonly IHeavyProcessingService heavyProcessingService;
// The constructor does no heavy processing. It is deferred until after
// the instance is created by HeavyProcessingService.
// The only thing happening here is assignment of dependencies.
public HomeController(IHeavyProcessingService heavyProcessingService) {
if (heavyProcessingService == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("heavyProcessingService");
this.heavyProcessingService = heavyProcessingService;
};
public ActionResult Index()
{
var result = this.heavyProcessingService.DoSomethingExpensive();
// Do something with the result of the heavy processing
return View();
}
public ActionResult About()
{
return View();
}
public ActionResult Contact()
{
return View();
}
}
Notice in the above example that no heavy processing happens in the constructor? This means that creating an instance of HomeController is very cheap. It also means that action methods that don't require the heavy processing to happen (as in About() and Contact() in the example) won't take the hit of heavy processing required by Index().
If not using DI, MVC still requires that a new controller instance be created for each request (controller instances are never shared between users or action methods). Although, in that case it is not as noticeable on a per user basis because only 1 instance is created per user. Basically, MvcSiteMapProvider is slowing down because of a pre-existing issue with your application (which you can now fix).
Even if you are not using DI, it is still a best practice to defer heavy processing until after the controller instance is created.
public class HomeController
{
private readonly IHeavyProcessingService heavyProcessingService;
public HomeController() {
this.heavyProcessingService = new HeavyProcessingService();
};
public ActionResult Index()
{
var result = this.heavyProcessingService.DoSomethingExpensive();
// Do something with the result of the heavy processing
return View();
}
}
But if moving heavy processing into external services in your application is not an option, you can still defer processing until its needed by moving the processing into another method so it is not too expensive to create controller instances.
public class HomeController
{
public HomeController() {
};
private IProcessingResult DoSomethingExpensive() {
// Lots of heavy processing
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(300);
}
public ActionResult Index()
{
var result = this.DoSomethingExpensive();
// Do something with the result of the heavy processing
return View();
}
}
Although there is a bug posted for Route values not preserved correctly in v4?
But looks like it was fixed in version 4 next release.
Another Workaround to fix this problem is cache here is a related article.
MVC siteMap provider cache
Related
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
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.
When I bind a "back button" to a the router in ReactiveUI, my ViewModel is no longer garbage collected (my view too). Is this a bug, or is this me doing something dumb?
Here is my MeetingPageViewModel:
public class MeetingPageViewModel : ReactiveObject, IRoutableViewModel
{
public MeetingPageViewModel(IScreen hs, IMeetingRef mRef)
{
HostScreen = hs;
}
public IScreen HostScreen { get; private set; }
public string UrlPathSegment
{
get { return "/meeting"; }
}
}
Here is my MeetingPage.xaml.cs file:
public sealed partial class MeetingPage : Page, IViewFor<MeetingPageViewModel>
{
public MeetingPage()
{
this.InitializeComponent();
// ** Comment this out and both the View and VM will get garbage collected.
this.BindCommand(ViewModel, x => x.HostScreen.Router.NavigateBack, y => y.backButton);
// Test that goes back right away to make sure the Execute
// wasn't what was causing the problem.
this.Loaded += (s, a) => ViewModel.HostScreen.Router.NavigateBack.Execute(null);
}
public MeetingPageViewModel ViewModel
{
get { return (MeetingPageViewModel)GetValue(ViewModelProperty); }
set { SetValue(ViewModelProperty, value); }
}
public static readonly DependencyProperty ViewModelProperty =
DependencyProperty.Register("ViewModel", typeof(MeetingPageViewModel), typeof(MeetingPage), new PropertyMetadata(null));
object IViewFor.ViewModel
{
get { return ViewModel; }
set { ViewModel = (MeetingPageViewModel)value; }
}
}
I then run, and to see what is up, I use VS 2013 Pro, and turn on the memory analyzer. I also (as a test) put in forced GC collection of all generations and a wait for finalizers. When that line is uncommented above, when all is done, there are three instances of MeetingPage and MeetingPageViewModel. If I remove the BindCommand line, there are no instances.
I was under the impression that these would go away on their own. Is the problem the HostScreen object or the Router that refers to an object that lives longer than this VM? And that pins things down?
If so, what is the recommended away of hooking up the back button? Using Splat and DI? Many thanks!
Following up on the idea I had at the end, I can solve this in the following way. In my App.xaml.cs, I make sure to declare the RoutingState to the dependency injector:
var r = new RoutingState();
Locator.CurrentMutable.RegisterConstant(r, typeof(RoutingState));
then, in the ctor of each view (the .xaml.cs code) with a back button for my Windows Store app, I no longer use the code above, but replace it with:
var router = Locator.Current.GetService<RoutingState>();
backButton.Click += (s, args) => router.NavigateBack.Execute(null);
After doing that I can visit the page as many times as I want and never do I see the instances remaining in the analyzer.
I'll wait to mark this as an answer to give real experts some time to suggest another (better?) approach.
Having an huge customers profile page if two or more users start using same page and start editing big change will happen in my database so planing to implement Threads concept where only one user can use that customer page
i'm aware about threads concept but confused how to implement it
hope i need to use Singleton class as well
Any suggestion or Logic's will be helpful
I'm using Struts,Hibernate frame work
You may use application context to store a flag variable. Action will use its value to allow only one simultaneous execution.
public class TestAction extends ActionSupport implements ApplicationAware {
private static final String APP_BUSY_KEY = "APP_BUSY";
Map<String, Object> map;
#Override
public void setApplication(Map<String, Object> map) {
this.map = map;
}
#Override
public String execute() throws Exception {
if (map.containsKey(APP_BUSY_KEY)) {
return ERROR;
} else {
map.put(APP_BUSY_KEY, "1");
try {
// action logic here
} finally {
map.remove(APP_BUSY_KEY);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
}
}
If you plan to implement similar logic for two requests (lock after displaying values and release lock after submitting new values) then logic will be more complex and you will also need to handle lock release after timeout.
I am trying to following this web blog on uploading large files using the Web Api class via Asp.Net Web Forms. If you look through the post you will notice that in order to avoid an out of memory because of buffering of larges files, they recommend overriding the IHostBufferPolicySelector interface. Where do I implement the interface? Do I do it in the Web Api class, in the Global.asax or am I completely off track and need to do the implementation somewhere else?
You don't need to implement this interface, I only listed it as a reference - that code is already part of Web API source (under System.Web.Http/Hosting/IHostBufferPolicySelector.cs)
What you need to do is override the base class System.Web.Http.WebHost.WebHostBufferPolicySelector
This is enough:
public class NoBufferPolicySelector : WebHostBufferPolicySelector
{
public override bool UseBufferedInputStream(object hostContext)
{
var context = hostContext as HttpContextBase;
if (context != null)
{
if (string.Equals(context.Request.RequestContext.RouteData.Values["controller"].ToString(), "uploading", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
return false;
}
return true;
}
public override bool UseBufferedOutputStream(HttpResponseMessage response)
{
return base.UseBufferedOutputStream(response);
}
}
and then registering your new class in either Global.asax or WebApiConfig.cs (whichever you prefer):
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Services.Replace(typeof(IHostBufferPolicySelector), new NoBufferPolicySelector());