As I exposed here, I would like to be able to query freely on the index without Orchard building the query for me.
I built a module, and inserted a copy of the SearchController, adding a new route...
To override default Orchard behavior concerning the query, I had to create new implementations of : ISearchService, IIndexManager, ISearchBuilder, IIndexProvider.
There are minor modifications from their default implementations, but they are needed.
That works as expected, but it currently override the default search too.
This is because I used the same interfaces and autofac takes my implementations.
I would like to be able to leave the default implementation untouched (at url /Search), and add my implementation at url (/LuceneSearch for example)
I suppose I must tell Autofac to use my implementations only for my controller by creating a class that inherits the autofac Module class.
Here is my problem : I don't know how to tell Autofac to use by default the Orchard Implementation, and just for my controller, use my implementation....
Another possibility is to create new interfaces, but it seems to me not really beautiful...
Can someone help me ? :)
Metadata feature will help you here. Also you have to register your implementations with PreserveExistingDefaults() modifier to preserve orchard's implementations by default.
Update:
Orchard registers all dependencies from Autofac's IModule implementation and from Orchard's IDependency one. All magic happen in Orchard's ShellContainerFactory class. Since ISearchService inherits from IDependency your implementation is registered by Orchard which overwrites default one.
You have two ways here:
Introduce your own empty interface IMySearchService which inherits from ISearchService. Implement and use it in your code where you need your implementation. Orchard will handle all registrations for your.
Orchard registers all IDependency implementations with "Feature" Metadata in ShellContainerFactory.RegisterType method. You can read this metadata in your code and choose your implementation (see link to wiki above). Feature class contains all necessary information about your module.
Hope this will help you.
A simpler method without dabbling with the intricacies of Autofac would be to use an IEnumerable<IInterface> variable in your controller/driver at url "/LuceneSearch" to hold all implementations of IInterface and choose which to consume.
For example, in order to consume your implementation of IIndexManager, you would put the following in your controller or driver
public class MyCustomPartDriver : ContentPartDriver<MyCustomPart> {
private readonly IEnumerable<IIndexManager> _indexManagers;
public MyCustomPartDriver(IEnumerable<IIndexManager> indexManagers) {
_indexManagers = indexManager;
}
protected override DriverResult Display(MyCustomPart part, string displayType, dynamic shapeHelper) {
//Use your implementation of IIndexManager
var indexManager = _indexManagers.First(im => im is MyCustomIndexManager);
//Get the ISearchBuilder from your implementation of IIndexManager
var searchBuilder = indexManager.HasIndexProvider() ? indexManager.GetSearchIndexProvider().CreateSearchBuilder("Search") : new NullSearchBuilder();
//perform search on the indexing engine
var contentItemIds = searchBuilder.
.WithField("type", "MyCustomType").Mandatory().ExactMatch()
.Parse("mycustompart-keyword", part.Keyword).Mandatory()
.Search()
.Select(h => h.ContentItemId)
.ToList();
//do stuff with the results returned and return a DriverResult using the ContentShape method. Well, you know the drill.
}
}
If you don't want to have autofac resolve your own implementation by default, then don't implement the public interface.
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.
I like the jhipster entity generator.
I often get to change my model and regen all entities.
I wish to keep the generated stuff and override for my needs.
On angular side, it is quite easy to create a new service extending the default entity service to do my stuff.
On java side, it is more complicated.
For example, I override src/main/java/xxx/web/rest/xxxResource.java with src/main/java/xxx/web/rest/xxxOverrideResource.java
I have to comment #RestController in xxxResource.java. I tried to give it a different bundle name from the overrided class but it is not sufficient : #RestController("xxxResource")
In xxxOverrideResource.java, I have to change all #xxxMapping() to different paths
In xxxOverrideResource.java, I have to change all method names
This allow me to keep the CRUD UI and API, and overload it using another MappingPath.
Some code to make it more visual. Here is the generated xxxResource.java
/**
* REST controller for managing WorldCommand.
*/
// Commented to prevent bean dupplicated error.
// #RestController
#RequestMapping("/api")
public class WorldCommandResource {
private final WorldCommandService worldCommandService;
public WorldCommandResource(WorldCommandService worldCommandService) {
this.worldCommandService = worldCommandService;
}
#PutMapping("/world-commands")
#Timed
public ResponseEntity<WorldCommand> updateWorldCommand(#Valid #RequestBody WorldCommand worldCommand)
throws URISyntaxException {
log.debug("REST request to update WorldCommand : {}", worldCommand);
...
}
Here is my overloaded version : xxxOverrideResource.java
/**
* REST controller for managing WorldCommand.
*/
#RestController("WorldCommandOverrideResource")
#RequestMapping("/api")
public class WorldCommandOverrideResource extends WorldCommandResource {
private final WorldCommandOverrideService worldCommandService;
public WorldCommandOverrideResource(WorldCommandOverrideService worldCommandService) {
super(worldCommandService);
log.warn("USING WorldCommandOResource");
this.worldCommandService = worldCommandService;
}
#PutMapping("/world-commands-override")
#Timed
public ResponseEntity<WorldCommand> updateWorldCommandOverride(#Valid #RequestBody WorldCommand worldCommand)
throws URISyntaxException {
throw new RuntimeException("WorldCommand updating not allowed");
}
With the xxxResource overrided, it is easy to override the xxxService and xxxRepository by constructor injection.
I feel like I am over thinking it. As it is not an external component but code from a generator, maybe the aim is to use the tool to write less code and then do the changes you need.
Also, I fear this overriding architecture will prevent me from creating abstract controller if needed.
Do you think keeping the original generated code is a good pratice or I should just make my changes in the generated class and be carefull when regenerating an entity ?
Do you know a better way to override a Spring controller ?
Your approach looks like the side-by-side approach described here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WVpwIUEty0
I often found that the generated REST API is only useful for managing data in a backoffice and I usually write a complete separate API with different endpoints, authorizations and DTOs that is consumed by mobile or end-users. So I don't see much value in overriding REST controllers, after all they are supposed to be quite thin with as little business logic as possible.
You must also consider how long you want to keep this compatibility with generated code. As your app grows in complexity you might want to refactor your code and organize it around feature packages rather than by technical packages (repository, rest controllers, services, ...). For many reasons, sooner or later the way the generated code is setup will get in your way, so I would not put too much effort into this compatibility goal that has no real business value especially when you know that the yearly released major version may break it because of changes in the generator itself or more likely because of changes in underlying frameworks.
Is there a way we can use ObjectContext with DbContext's ModelBuilder? We don't want to use POCO because we have customized property code that does not modify entire object in update, but only update modified properties. Also we have lots of serialisation and auditing code that uses EntityObject.
Since poco does create a proxy with EntityObject, we want our classes to be derived from EntityObject. We don't want proxy. We also heavily use CreateSourceQuery. The only problem is EDMX file and its big connection string syntax web.config.
Is there any way I can get rid of EDMX file? It will be useful as we can dynamically compile new class based on reverse engineering database.
I would also like to use DbContext with EntityObject instead of poco.
Internal Logic
Access Modified Properties in Save Changes which is available in ObjectStateEntry and Save them onto Audit with Old and New Values
Most of times we need to only check for Any condition on Navigation Property for example
User.EmailAddresses.CreateSourceQuery()
.Any( x=> x.EmailAddress == givenAddress);
Access Property Attributes, such as XmlIgnore etc, we rely heavily on attributes defined on the properties.
A proxy for a POCO is a dynamically created class which derives from (inherits) a POCO. It adds functionality previously found in EntityObject, namely lazy loading and change tracking, as long as a POCO meets requirements. A POCO or its proxy does not contain an EntityObject as the question suggests, but rather a proxy contains functionality of EntityObject. You cannot (AFAIK) use ModelBuilder with EntityObject derivatives and you cannot get to an underlying EntityObject from a POCO or a proxy, since there isn't one as such.
I don't know what features of ObjectContext does your existing serialisation and auditing code use, but you can get to ObjectContext from a DbContext by casting a DbContext to a IObjectContextAdapter and accessing IObjectContextAdapter.ObjectContext property.
EDIT:
1. Access Modified Properties in Save Changes which is available in ObjectStateEntry and Save them onto Audit with Old and New Values
You can achieve this with POCOs by using DbContext.ChangeTracker. First you call DbContext.ChangeTracker.DetectChanges to detect the changes (if you use proxies this is not needed, but can't hurt) and then you use DbCotnext.Entries.Where(e => e.State != EntityState.Unchanged && e.State != EntityState.Detached) to get DbEntityEntry list of changed entities for auditing. Each DbEntityEntry has OriginalValues and CurrentValues and the actual Entity is in property Entity.
You also have access to ObjectStateEntry, see below.
2. Most of times we need to only check for Any condition on Navigation Property for example:
User.EmailAddresses.CreateSourceQuery().Any( x=> x.EmailAddress == givenAddress);
You can use CreateSourceQuery() with DbContext by utilizing IObjectContextAdapter as described previously. When you have ObjectContext you can get to the source query for a related end like this:
public static class DbContextUtils
{
public static ObjectQuery<TMember> CreateSourceQuery<TEntity, TMember>(this IObjectContextAdapter adapter, TEntity entity, Expression<Func<TEntity, ICollection<TMember>>> memberSelector) where TMember : class
{
var objectStateManager = adapter.ObjectContext.ObjectStateManager;
var objectStateEntry = objectStateManager.GetObjectStateEntry(entity);
var relationshipManager = objectStateManager.GetRelationshipManager(entity);
var entityType = (EntityType)objectStateEntry.EntitySet.ElementType;
var navigationProperty = entityType.NavigationProperties[(memberSelector.Body as MemberExpression).Member.Name];
var relatedEnd = relationshipManager.GetRelatedEnd(navigationProperty.RelationshipType.FullName, navigationProperty.ToEndMember.Name);
return ((EntityCollection<TMember>)relatedEnd).CreateSourceQuery();
}
}
This method uses no dynamic code and is strongly typed since it uses expressions. You use it like this:
myDbContext.CreateSourceQuery(invoice, i => i.details);
I am very new to concept of IOC and I understand the fact that they help us resolve different classes in different contexts. Your calling class will just interact with Interface and Interface with decide which implementation to give you and it takes care of newing up the object.
Please do correct me if I am understanding is wrong because my question is based on that:
Now, I see this pattern very often in these projects:
private readonly IEmailService emailService;
private readonly ITemplateRenderer templateRenderer;
private readonly IHtmlToTextTransformer htmlToTextTransformer;
public TemplateEmailService(IEmailService emailService,
ITemplateRenderer templateRenderer,
IHtmlToTextTransformer htmlToTextTransformer)
{
this.emailService = emailService;
this.htmlToTextTransformer = htmlToTextTransformer;
this.templateRenderer = templateRenderer;
}
I understand that this helps using all the implementations of these classes without newing them up and also you don't have to decide WHICH implementaion to get, your IOC decides it for you, right?
but when I code like this, I do not even touch any IOC congiguration files. And again I am usin git for 2 days only but from all the tutorials that I have read, I was expecting my self to configure something which says "Resolve IParent to Child" class. But it works without me doing anything like it. Is it because there is only one implementaion of these interfaces? and If I do have more than one implementations then and then only I will have to configure resolved explicitly?
The code sample you have is a case of Constructor Injection.
In a traditional code, you would have a parameterless constructor, and in it you would "new-up" your objects like this:
IEmailService emailService = new EmailService();
So your code is explictly controlling which implementation gets assigned to the interface variable.
In IoC using constructor injection, control is inverted, meaning the container is "driving the bus" and is creating your TemplateEmailService object. When it is about to create it, the container looks at your constructor parameters (IEmailService , ITemplateRenderer , etc.) and feeds those objects to your class for use.
The IoC container can be configured so that interface A gets fulfilled by implementation B (or C) explicitly. Each one has a way to do it. Or it could do it by convention (IFoo fulfilled by Foo), or even attributes in classes, whatever.
So to answer your question-- you can explicitly define which implementations get used to fulfill certain interfaces. Got to read the IoC container docs for how to.
One more thing - "when you code like this", you technically don't have to be using an IoC container. In fact, your class should not have a direct reference to the container - it will maximize the reusability, and also allow easy testing. So you would wire-up interfaces to implementation classes elsewhere.
i am trying to refactor my project to improve testability, therefor i'm introducing an abstract factory.
My application collects data from different sources by using ICrawlers.
These ICrawlers use 3rd party libraries to access different sources, like e.g. twitter.
Example: My TwitterCrawler uses TweetSharp to access twitter data.
My first version strongly coupled the TweetSharp client to the Crawler. Now i abstracted the TweetSharp to a ITwitterClient and a TweetSharpTwitterClient implementation.
Next step is to introduce a ITwitterClientFactory with a DefaultTwitterClientFactory that creates TweetSharpTwitterClients. This should bring me closer to my goal (testability) because i can switch the factory to MockTwitterClientFactory that creates a MockTwitterClient, that delivers some test output.
Now, let me come to my point.
I am using MEF for dependency injection (but i'm rather new to it). What I'm doing is this:
public class TwitterCrawler : CrawlerBase, ICrawler
{
[Import]
public ITwitterClientFactory TwitterClientFactory {get; set;}
public override Process()
{
ITwitterClient twitterClient = TwitterClientFactory.MakeSingletonClient();
// do something with twitterClient
}
}
Whereas my DefaultTwitterClientFactory exports itself to MEF:
[Export(typeof(ITwitterClient))]
public class DefaultTwitterClientFactory: ITwitterClientFactory
{
// implementation of ITwitterClientFactory
// provides methods to create instances of ITwitterClient implementations
}
Now, while this works so far, my question is, how to switch the factory?
How can i create a unit test and use the MockClientFactory instead of the DefaultTwitterClientFactory?
Is my approach good at all? Is it better to manually set the factory that is to be used?
Somewhere something like
... new TwitterCrawler(mockedTwitterClientFactory)
or even
.... new TwitterCrawler(mockedTwitterClient)?
This actually only moves the problem outside of TwitterClient, but still somewhere i have to decide how to construct the ITwitterClient and what factory to use for that purpose.
Should i dive more into the mechanics of MEF (ExportProvider?)
You shouldn't need to use the composer/container in your unit tests - just wire the SUT directly with the Test Doubles.
Something like this:
var sut = new TwitterCrawler();
sut.TwitterClientFactory = new FakeTwitterClientFactory();
However, you should really refactor from Property Injection to Constructor Injection, as the property implies that the dependency is optional.
BTW, your DefaultTwitterClientFactory doesn't export itself, it exports ITwitterClient.