I'm trying to use the MEF ImportingConstructor in my class, and while I've used MEF successfully in the past, I've always started with creating the CompositionContainer to assemble all the exports.
What container does the ImportingConstructor use to satisfy it's imports?
You still need to create a container and either supply the exports yourself or supply catalogs to identify how to find the exports. Once those are provided, the imports are resolved from the container used to get the exported value.
So if you have:
[Export]
public sealed class A
{
}
[Export]
public sealed class B
{
[ImportingConstructor]
public B(A a)
{
}
}
Then you call container.GetExportedValue<B>(), it will look in the catalog to find the export for B, then find the importing constructor, then try to resolve the import for A. Assuming that class A is part of your available exports (either added explicitly or, more typically, part of a catalog), it will then get the exported value of A (possibly constructing it) and use that to construct B.
Assuming that your confusion is over the catalogs part of this, check out this guide. Basically you just need to add catalogs for the assemblies whose exports you want exposed.
Related
I have a servicereference with a method I need to use in a test.
The servicereference class is defined as:
public class MyServiceReference : Clientbase<IMyServiceReference>, IMyServiceReference
{
public MyServiceReference()
{
}
..... methods is then defined
}
From my testmethod I have tried both
private MyServiceReference myServiceReferenceFake = A.Fake<MyServiceReference>();
// And
private MyServiceReference myServiceReference = new MyServiceReference();
For both of these is crashes in the constructor with the message:
System.InvalidOperationException: Could not find default endpoint element that references contract.
All I need is to have a callto definition from a method in that class.
How can this be solved?
I've no experience with Clientbase, which I assume to be a System.ServiceModel.ClientBase<TChannel>,but I can make some general comments.
Since you tried first to fake a MyServiceReference, I'll assume that you're not testing that class, and you want to use it as a collaborator for the system under test. In that case, your best bet is to try faking IMyServiceReference. interfaces are very easy to fake, since they don't bring along any behaviour or baggage like faking a class does.
If you feel you really need to fake a MyServiceReference, then we have to contend with the fact that FakeItEasy will eventually call MyServiceReference(), which will call ClientBase<IMyServiceReference>(), whose documentation says
Initializes a new instance of the ClientBase<TChannel> class using the default target endpoint from the application configuration file.
Based on the error you reported, I assume that the application configuration file is not found or does not include the configuration required to create a MyServiceReference. The fact that you get the same error when you just try to instantiate a MyServiceReference directly strengthens my belief.
So I think your paths forward are either to try faking IMyServiceReference or to provide the configuration that ClientBase<IMyServiceReference> needs.
To externalize UI strings we use the "Messages-class" approach as supported e.g. in Eclipse and other IDEs. This approach requires that in each package where one needs some UI strings there has to be a class "Messages" that offers a static method String getString(key) via which one obtains the actual String to display to the user. The Strings are internally accessed/fetched using Java's Resources mechanism for i18n.
Esp. after some refactoring - we again and again have accidental imports from a class Messages from a different package.
Thus I would like to create an archunit rule checking whether we only access classes called "Messages" from the very same package. I.e. each import of a class x.y.z.Messages is an error if the package x.y.z is not the same package as the current class (i.e. the class that contains the import)
I got as far as this:
#ArchTest
void preventReferencesToMessagesOutsideCurrentPackage(JavaClasses classes) {
ArchRule rule;
rule = ArchRuleDefinition.noClasses()
.should().accessClassesThat().haveNameMatching("Messages")
.???
;
rule.check(classes);
}
but now I got stuck at the ???.
How can one phrase a condition "and the referenced/imported class "Messages" is not in the same package as this class"?
I somehow got lost with all these archunit methods of which none seems to fit here nor lend itself to compose said condition. Probably I just can't see the forest for the many trees.
Any suggestion or guidance anyone?
You need to operate on instances of JavaAccess to validate the dependencies. JavaAccess provides information about the caller and the target such that you can validate the access dynamically depending on the package name of both classes.
DescribedPredicate<JavaAccess<?>> isForeignMessageClassPredicate =
new DescribedPredicate<JavaAccess<?>>("target is a foreign message class") {
#Override
public boolean apply(JavaAccess<?> access) {
JavaClass targetClass = access.getTarget().getOwner();
if ("Message".equals(targetClass.getSimpleName())) {
JavaClass callerClass = access.getOwner().getOwner();
return !targetClass.getPackageName().equals(callerClass.getPackageName());
}
return false;
}
};
ArchRule rule =
noClasses().should().accessTargetWhere(isForeignMessageClassPredicate);
I have a module "base" with an init.pp class which has some parameters as such:
class base (
$listen_ip = "xx.xx.xx.xx",
$listen_port = 3306,
$admin_username = 'admin',
$admin_password = 'admin',
)
{
...
}
Then I have created a profile "base" where I want to set some of the parameters:
class profile::base {
class { 'base':
$listen_ip = "xxx.xxx.xx.xx",
$listen_port => 6033,
}
}
Then the is a secondary profile where I want to set the username and password:
class profile::department::sales::base {
class { '::profile::base':
$admin_username = "some_user",
$admin_password => "some_pw",
}
}
However it's not possible to set the parameters from the "sales" profile.
The idea is that some values will be always the same for the base class and that some differ based on the department.
However it's not possible to set the parameters from the "sales" profile.
Not exactly. What is not allowed is using two different resource-like declarations for the same class while building one manifest. If you use even one then you must make certain that it is the first (or only) declaration of that class that the catalog builder evaluates.
To understand this, you need to appreciate that assigning parameter values is not the principal purpose of declarations such you are using. The principal purpose is rather to specify that the class in question should be included in the catalog in the first place. In service to that goal, values are bound to all the parameters of a class at the point where its first declaration is evaluated. Thus, your two class declarations do not supplement each other. Instead, they conflict with each other.
Even if the parameter values it specified for class base were identical to those declared by class profile::base, however, Puppet would still object to all uses of class profile::department::sales::base. To simplify evaluation and be absolutely certain to avoid inconsistency, it implements a stronger constraint than is actually required: that only the first-evaluated declaration of any given class may be a resource-like one.
Note: the latest docs actually specify an even stronger constraint than that: "Resource-like class declarations require that you declare a given class only once." In practice, however, this is a simplification (in every version of Puppet so far released since the introduction of parameterized classes). It is likely inspired by the fact that the order in which Puppet manifests are evaluated can be difficult to predict, so if you use include-like declarations along with a resource-like declaration of the same class, in different manifests, then it can be hard to ensure that the resource-like one is always evaluated first.
The idea is that some values will be always the same for the base
class and that some differ based on the department.
For most purposes it is best to avoid resource-like class declarations altogether, relying instead on external data (Hiera) for binding values to class parameters. Hiera recognizes a hierarchy of data sources (hence the name) and supports specifying different parameters at different levels, and even overriding data from one level at a higher-priority level.
My suggestion, then, is to leverage Hiera to assign appropriate parameter values to class base. There are many ways the specifics could play out.
I currently have two classes that I created within /etc/puppet/modules/params/manifests/init.pp
class modulename ($variable_name = 'Any string') inherits modulename::params{
file { '/tmp/mytoplevelclass.sh' :
mode => '644',
ensure => 'present',
content => $variable_name
}
}
class modulename::params{
}
However, I am having an issue declaring these classes in /etc/puppet/manifests/site.pp. Currently, I have it written as
node default { #client
class { 'modulename':}
class { 'modulename::params':}
}
I know that this is incorrect because when I run puppet agent -t on the client I get an error stating
Could not find declared class modulename at /etc/puppet/manifests/site.pp
I have tried several different configurations and still am unsure on what to do.
Puppet determines the file in which it expects to find a class's definition based on the class's fully-qualified name. The docs go into it in some detail; in particular, you should review the Module Fundamentals. (I am guessing that you are on Puppet 3, but the details I am about to discuss are unchanged in Puppet 4.)
Supposing that /etc/puppet/modules is a directory in your modulepath, it is a fine place to install (or write) your modulename module, as indeed you indicate you are doing. If it is not in your module path, then you'll want either to move your module to a directory in the module path, or to add that directory to the module path. I assume that you will resolve any problem of this sort via the latter alternative, so that /etc/puppet/modules/modulename is a valid module directory.
Now, class 'modulename' is a bit special in that its name is also a module name; as such, it should be defined in /etc/puppet/modules/modulename/manifests/init.pp. Class modulename::params, on the other hand, should follow the normal pattern, being defined in /etc/puppet/modules/modulename/manifests/params.pp. I anticipate that Puppet will find the definitions if you put the definitions in the correct files.
Bonus advice:
Use include-like class declarations in your node blocks, not resource-like declarations
Your node blocks probably should not declare modulename::params at all
I am trying to create a "template" for all my servers. I have 2 configurations. An NTP client (which is taken care of in the baseclass class. I want to create an override specific for the NTP servers by declaring something specific in the node declaration. Something like "baseclass::ntp:restrict => true,". Or alternatively, how would I change one of the already declared variable from baseclass::ntp?
Does anyone have any ideas host to do this?
This is what I have so far:
templates.pp
class baseclass {
include defaultusers
include sudoers
include issue
class { ntp:
ensure => running,
servers => ['ntpserver1.host.com',
'ntpserver2.host.com',],
autoupdate => false,
}
}
nodes.pp
node default {
include baseclass
}
node "ntpserver1.host.com" inherits default {
<some code here to declare new variable in baseclass::ntp>
<some code here to change existing variable, such as "ensure">
}
You have run smack into the problem with parameterized classes: they don't support overrides. They should, but due to various problems with the order in which things are initialized in Puppet, you can't override parameters to classes. Once you set them, you're done. This is different from defines, where overriding parameters works as you expect. There's an open bug about this that a bunch of us have voted up and are watching, but there appears to be little progress.
Given that, my recommendation would be to recast your parameterized ntp class as a define instead, because a define will work exactly as you want. Change the class to something like:
define ntp($servers, $autoupdate = false, $ensure = 'running') {
# ... put code from class here ...
}
and then change baseclass to:
ntp { $fqdn:
servers => [ 'ntpserver1.host.com',
'ntpserver2.host.com',],
}
You will have to change the class structure to add a new class, since you can't inherit from a class in a node, so change your node to:
node "ntpserver1.host.com" inherits default {
include hosts::ntpserver1
}
or however you want to name your per-host configuration classes. Then, in that class, you can do exactly what you expect to be able to do:
class hosts::ntpserver1 inherits baseclass {
Ntp["$fqdn"] { ensure => 'stopped' }
}
I know this seems like a huge runaround, particularly if you're used to doing a bunch of stuff inside nodes (which don't participate in the class inheritance tree). But without being able to override parameters to classes, there doesn't seem to be a good alternative. (We manage 500+ nodes and about 100 completely separate service definitions, with hundreds of modules and a huge amount of variety between hosts, including per-host overrides, using this method and it works extremely well.)
TL,DR summary: You can't override class parameters. Once you've passed a parameter to a class in Puppet, you're done. You can override define parameters. Therefore, anything you want to override is better written as a define than a class. However, remember that override hierarchies means that you have to put the core of your node definition in a class, since only classes can inherit from and override another class. Therefore, if you use overrides heavily, get into the habit of having your node definitions be trivial (just including a class that does all the work) so that your classes can inherit from base classes and override the parameters to defines.
I accepted rra's answer, but I found a solution that worked for me a little better. It's a slight hack, I suppose:
template.pp
class baseclass ($ntprestrict = 'false') {
include defaultusers
include sudoers
include issue
class { ntp:
ensure => running,
servers => ['ntpserver1.host.com',
'ntpserver2.host.com',],
autoupdate => false,
restrict => $ntprestrict,
}
}
nodes.pp
node "ntpserver1.host.com" {
class { baseclass: ntprestrict => 'true' }
}
node "client.host.com" {
class { baseclass: ntprestrict => 'false' }
}