I am creating a rule set engine that looks kinda like a unit test framework.
[RuleSet(ContextA)]
public class RuleSet1
{
[Rule(TargetingA)]
public Conclusion Rule1(SubjectA subject)
{ Create conclusion }
[Rule(TargetingA)]
public Conclusion Rule2(SubjectA subject)
{ Create conclusion }
[Rule(TargetingB)]
public Conclusion Rule3(SubjectB subject)
{ Create conclusion }
}
[RuleSet(ContextB)]
public class RuleSet2
{
[Rule(TargetingB)]
public Conclusion Rule1(SubjectB subject)
{ Create conclusion }
[Rule(TargetingA)]
public Conclusion Rule2(SubjectA subject)
{ Create conclusion }
[Rule(TargetingB)]
public Conclusion Rule3(SubjectB subject)
{ Create conclusion }
}
public class Conclusion()
{
// Errorcode, Description and such
}
// contexts and targeting info are enums.
The goal is to create an extensible ruleset that doesn't alter the API from consumer POV while having good separation-of-concerns within the code files. Again: like a unit test framework.
I am trying to create a library of these that expose the following API
public static class RuleEngine
{
public static IEnumerable<IRuleSet> RuleSets(contextFlags contexts)
{
{
return from type in Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()
let attribute =
type.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (RuleSetAttribute), true)
.OfType<RuleSetAttribute>()
.FirstOrDefault()
where attribute != null
select ?? I don't know how to convert the individual methods to Func's.
}
}
}
internal interface IRuleset
{
IEnumerable<Func<SubjectA, Conclusion>> SubjectARules { get; }
IEnumerable<Func<SubjectB, Conclusion>> SubjectBRules { get; }
}
...which allows consumers to simply use like this (using foreach instead of LINQ for readability in this example)
foreach (var ruleset in RuleEgine.RuleSets(context))
{
foreach (var rule in ruleset.SubjectARules)
{
var conclusion = rule(myContextA);
//handle the conclusion
}
}
Also, it would be very helpful if you could tell me how to get rid of "TargetingA" and "TargetingB" as RuleAttribute parameters and instead use reflection to inspect the parameter type of the decorated method directly. All the while maintaining the same simple external API.
You can use Delegate.CreateDelegate and the GetParameters method to do what you want.
public class RuleSet : IRuleSet
{
public IEnumerable<Func<SubjectA, Conclusion>> SubjectARules { get; set; }
public IEnumerable<Func<SubjectB, Conclusion>> SubjectBRules { get; set; }
}
public static class RuleEngine
{
public static IEnumerable<IRuleSet> RuleSets() // removed contexts parameter for brevity
{
var result = from t in Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()
where t.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(RuleSetAttribute), true).Any()
let m = t.GetMethods().Where(m => m.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(RuleAttribute)).Any()).ToArray()
select new RuleSet
{
SubjectARules = CreateFuncs<SubjectA>(m).ToList(),
SubjectBRules = CreateFuncs<SubjectB>(m).ToList()
};
return result;
}
}
// no error checking for brevity
// TODO: use better variable names
public static IEnumerable<Func<T, Conclusion>> CreateFuncs<T>(MethodInfo[] m)
{
return from x in m
where x.GetParameters()[0].ParameterType == typeof(T)
select (Func<T, Conclusion>)Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<T, Conclusion>), null, x);
}
Then you can use it like this:
var sa = new SubjectA();
foreach (var ruleset in RuleEngine.RuleSets())
{
foreach (var rule in ruleset.SubjectARules)
{
var conclusion = rule(sa);
// do something with conclusion
}
}
In your LINQ query you headed straight for RuleSetAttribute, and so lost other information. If you break the query in several lines of code you can get methods from the type with GetMethods(), and then you can call GetCustomAttribute<RuleAttribute>().
Related
I'm using Dapper Extensions and have defined my own custom mapper to deal with entities with composite keys.
public class MyClassMapper<T> : ClassMapper<T> where T : class
{
public MyClassMapper()
{
// Manage unmappable attributes
IList<PropertyInfo> toIgnore = typeof(T).GetProperties().Where(x => !x.CanWrite).ToList();
foreach (PropertyInfo propertyInfo in toIgnore.ToList())
{
Map(propertyInfo).Ignore();
}
// Manage keys
IList<PropertyInfo> propsWithId = typeof(T).GetProperties().Where(x => x.Name.EndsWith("Id") || x.Name.EndsWith("ID")).ToList();
PropertyInfo primaryKey = propsWithId.FirstOrDefault(x => string.Equals(x.Name, $"{nameof(T)}Id", StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase));
if (primaryKey != null && primaryKey.PropertyType == typeof(int))
{
Map(primaryKey).Key(KeyType.Identity);
}
else if (propsWithId.Any())
{
foreach (PropertyInfo prop in propsWithId)
{
Map(prop).Key(KeyType.Assigned);
}
}
AutoMap();
}
}
I also have this test case to test my mapper:
[Test]
public void TestMyAutoMapper()
{
DapperExtensions.DapperExtensions.DefaultMapper = typeof(MyClassMapper<>);
MySubscribtionEntityWithCompositeKey entity = new MySubscribtionEntityWithCompositeKey
{
SubscriptionID = 145,
CustomerPackageID = 32
};
using (var connection = new SqlConnection(CONNECTION_STRING))
{
connection.Open();
var result = connection.Insert(entity);
var key1 = result.SubscriptionID;
var key2 = result.CustomerPackageID;
}
}
Note that I set the default mapper in the test case.
The insert fails and I notive that my customer mapper is never called. I have no documentation on the github page on the topic, so I'm not sure if there's anything else I need to do to make dapper extensions use my mapper.
Thanks in advance!
Looking at your question, you are attempting to write your own defalut class mapper derived from the existing one. I never used this approach; so I do not know why it is not working or whether it should work.
I explicitly map the classes as below:
public class Customer
{
public int CustomerID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public sealed class CustomerMapper : ClassMapper<Customer>
{
public CustomerMapper()
{
Schema("dbo");
Table("Customer");
Map(x => x.CustomerID).Key(KeyType.Identity);
AutoMap();
}
}
The AutoMap() will map rest of the properties based on conventions. Please refer to these two resources for more information about mapping.
Then I call SetMappingAssemblies at the startup of the project as below:
DapperExtensions.DapperExtensions.SetMappingAssemblies(new[] { Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly() });
The GetExecutingAssembly() is used in above code because mapping classes (CustomerMapper and other) are in same assembly which is executing. If those classes are placed in other assembly, provide that assembly instead.
And that's it, it works.
To set the dialect, I call following line just below the SetMappingAssemblies:
DapperExtensions.DapperExtensions.SqlDialect = new DapperExtensions.Sql.SqlServerDialect();
Use your preferred dialect instead of SqlServerDialect.
Apparently, the solution mentioned here may help you achieve what you are actually trying to. But, I cannot be sure, as I said above, I never used it.
I have few classes and they have multiple list items like below:
public class Request1
{
public List<AdditionalApplicantData> AdditionalApplicantData { get; set;}
public List<ApplicantData> ApplicantData { get; set; }
}
public class Request2
{
public List<ApplicantDetails> ApplicantData { get; set; }
}
I want to map Request1 to Request2 but List of ApplicantData has to be mapped from multiple sources like List of ApplicantData & List of AdditionalApplicantData but not sure how to achieve it can someone please help me here?
You can use function below with createMap() function. Source: https://github.com/AutoMapper/AutoMapper/wiki/Before-and-after-map-actions
.AfterMap((src, dest) => {
dest.ApplicantData = /*your logic here*/
});
And you should mark ApplicantData as don't map because you have a variable named ApplicantData at the source class. You should implement the logic yourself.
EDIT:
When you are initializing mapper, you create map for each object. So for your case it would be like:
Mapper.Initialize(cfg => {
cfg.CreateMap<Request1, Request2>()
.ForMember(x => x.ApplicantData, opt => opt.Ignore()) //You want to implement your logic so ignore mapping
.AfterMap((src, dest) =>
{
dest.ApplicantData = /*implement your logic here*/
});
});
public class ApplicantDetailsResolver : IValueResolver<Request1, Request2, List<ApplicantDetails>>
{
public List<ApplicantDetails> Resolve(Request1 source, Request2 destination,List<ApplicantDetails> destMember, ResolutionContext context)
{
destination.ApplicantDetails = context.Mapper.Map<List<ApplicantDetails>>(source.ApplicantData);
for (int i = 0; i < destination.ApplicantDetails.Count(); i++)
{
context.Mapper.Map(source.AdditionalApplicantData.ElementAt(i), destination.ApplicantDetails.ElementAt(i));
}
return destination.ApplicantDetails;
}
}
I have written above custom value resolver for mapping list from multiple sources and its working fine but problem, is it can't match properties which are differently named, is there way I can handle this scenario as well?
I am using Unity as IOC and trying to inject an interface with a factory method which takes a interface as a parameter.
For some reason the configReader parameter in the factory method GetTitleParser(), is null and not getting the injected ConfigurationReader() instance.
When i place a debug point at the line in RegisterTypes method where the new InjectionFactory exists, ITitleParser is not showing as mapped to a proper mapped type.
can anyone help what am i doing wrong here?
Here is my code:
public class UnityContainerBuilder
{
public static IUnityContainer Build()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
container.LoadConfiguration();
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c => ParserFactory.GetTitleParser()));
}
}
public class ParserFactory
{
public static ITitleParser GetTitleParser(IConfigurationReader configReader=null)
{
if(configReader==null) configReader = new ConfigurationReader();
/* rest of code here...*/
return parser;
}
}
It works when i use the following code. Is this the right way to do this?
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var configReader = c.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>();
var parser = ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(configReader);
return parser;
}));
When you use default parameters it's equal to:
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(
new InjectionFactory(c => ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(null)));
Because, compiler inserts all default values in method calls (null in your case).
So, your code is valid:
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var configReader = c.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>();
var parser = ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(configReader);
return parser;
}));
But i advice you to remove default value to make code more expressive.
Your code is valid but maybe you can avoid messing up with InjectionFactory parameters and ParserFactory.
public class UnityContainerBuilder
{
public static IUnityContainer Build()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
container.LoadConfiguration();
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterInstance<IAppConfig>(container.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>().ReadConfiguration());
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser, TitleParser>();
}
}
public class AppConfig: IAppConfig
{
public AppConfig(){}
//value1 property
//value2 property
//etc
}
public class ConfigurationReader: IConfigurationReader
{
public ConfigurationReader(){}
public IAppConfig ReadConfiguration(){
var currentConfig = new AppConfig();
//read config from file, DB, etc and init currentCongif
return currentConfig;
}
}
public class TitleParser : ITitleParser
{
public TitleParser(IAppConfif)
{
//config already readed, just do the work
}
}
Consider the following existing classes which uses MEF to compose Consumer.
public interface IProducer
{
void Produce();
}
[Export(typeof(IProducer))]
public class Producer : IProducer
{
public Producer()
{
// perform some initialization
}
public void Produce()
{
// produce something
}
}
public class Consumer
{
[Import]
public IProducer Producer
{
get;
set;
}
[ImportingConstructor]
public Consumer(IProducer producer)
{
Producer = producer;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
// do something
Producer.Produce();
}
}
However, the creation of Producer has become complex enough that it can no longer be done within the constructor and the default behavior no longer suffices.
I'd like to introduce a factory and register it using a custom FactoryAttribute on the producer itself. This is what I have in mind:
[Export(typeof(IProducer))]
[Factory(typeof(ProducerFactory))]
public class Producer : IProducer
{
public Producer()
{
// perform some initialization
}
public void Produce()
{
// produce something
}
}
[Export]
public class ProducerFactory
{
public Producer Create()
{
// Perform complex initialization
return new Producer();
}
}
public class FactoryAttribute : Attribute
{
public Type ObjectType
{
get;
private set;
}
public FactoryAttribute(Type objectType)
{
ObjectType = objectType;
}
}
If I had to write the "new" code myself, it may very well look as follows. It would use the factory attribute, if it exists, to create a part, or default to the MEF to create it.
public object Create(Type partType, CompositionContainer container)
{
var attribute = (FactoryAttribute)partType.GetCustomAttributes(typeof (FactoryAttribute), true).FirstOrDefault();
if (attribute == null)
{
var result = container.GetExports(partType, null, null).First();
return result.Value;
}
else
{
var factoryExport = container.GetExports(attribute.ObjectType, null, null).First();
var factory = factoryExport.Value;
var method = factory.GetType().GetMethod("Create");
var result = method.Invoke(factory, new object[0]);
container.ComposeParts(result);
return result;
}
}
There are a number of articles how to implement a ExportProvider, including:
MEF + Object Factories using Export Provider
Dynamic Instantiation
However, the examples are not ideal when
The application has no dependencies or knowledge of Producer, only IProducer. It would not be able to register the factory when the CompositionContainer is created.
Producer is reused by several applications and a developer may mistakenly forget to register the factory when the CompositionContainer is created.
There are a large number of types that require custom factories and it may pose a maintenance nightmare to remember to register factories when the CompositionContainer is created.
I started to create a ExportProvider (assuming this would provide the means to implement construction using factory).
public class FactoryExportProvider : ExportProvider
{
protected override IEnumerable<Export> GetExportsCore(ImportDefinition definition,
AtomicComposition atomicComposition)
{
// What to do here?
}
}
However, I'm having trouble understanding how to tell MEF to use the factory objects defined in the FactoryAttribute, and use the default creation mechanism if no such attribute exists.
What is the correct manner to implement this? I'm using MEF 2 Preview 5 and .NET 4.
You can make use of a property export:
public class ProducerExporter
{
[Export]
public IProducer MyProducer
{
get
{
var producer = new Producer();
// complex initialization here
return producer;
}
}
}
Note that the term factory isn't really appropriate for your example, I would reserve that term for the case where the importer wants to create instances at will, possibly by providing one or more parameters. That could be done with a method export:
public class ProducerFactory
{
[Export(typeof(Func<Type1,Type2,IProducer>)]
public IProducer CreateProducer(Type1 arg1, Type2 arg2)
{
return new Producer(arg1, arg2);
}
}
On the import side, you would then import a Func<Type1,Type2,IProducer> that you can invoke at will to create new instances.
I have a validation interface like so:
public interface IValidation<T> {
bool IsValid(T item, ref AggregateException fail);
}
I have a file importer that needs several validation interfaces
public FileImporter {
IEnumerable<IValidation<Patient>> Validators { get; set; }
public FileImporter(IWindsorContainer container) {
// the ResolveAll method does not do this
Validators = container.ResolveAll<IValidation<Patient>>("fileValidation");
}
}
I also have another class that has more validators but uses some of the same ones used in FileImporter.
public PatientService {
IEnumerable<IValidation<Patient>> Validators { get; set; }
public PatientService(IWindsorContainer container) {
// the ResolveAll method does not do this
Validators = container.ResolveAll<IValidation<Patient>>("userInputValidation");
}
}
For example I have two validators LastNameValidator and DateOfBirthValidator. LastNameValidator is used in both theFileImporterand thePatientService.DateOfBirthValidatoris only used in thePatientService` class. The implementation of these two classes are below the question.
My question is how can i wire up these two classes so that they are used as described above. And what method call should I make to resolve them?
public class LastNameValidator : IValidation<Patient> {
public bool IsValid(Patient p, ref AggregateException fail) {
var isValid = !string.IsNullOrWhitespace(p.LastName))
if (!isValid)
// update fail
return isValid;
}
}
public class DateOfBirthValidator : IValidation<Patient> {
public bool IsValid(Patient p, ref AggregateException fail) {
if (!p.DateOfBirth.HasValue) {
// update fail, can't be empty
return false;
}
if (p.DateOfBirth.Value > DateTime.Now) {
// update fail, can't be in future
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
I would consider the Typed Factory Facility. You could register your validators with the names "lastnamevalidator" and "dobvalidator". Then create a factory interface for grabbing those specific validators. You just need the interface -- the facility will do the implementation:
public interface IValidatorFactory
{
IValidator GetLastNameValidator();
IValidator GetDobValidator();
}
Now pass the IValidatorFactory to your component. This also removes the need to pass the Windsor container around (which isn't a good idea as it tightly couples your code to Windsor and makes unit testing more difficult).
Now just call the factory methods to access the particular validator each component needs.
UPDATE:
Still not clear on which part of your system is going to determine which IValidators to use, but maybe this would work. Use a marker inteface that is based on IValidator.
public interface IFileValidator : IValidator
{
}
public interface IUserInputValidator : IValidator
{
}
Now have your validators implement the marker interfaces depending on where they are going to be used -- and remember you can implement multiple interfaces so validators can be used in multiple situations. Example:
public class FileValidator : IFileValidator
{
public bool IsValid()
{
return false;
}
}
public class DobValidator : IUserInputValidator, IFileValidator
{
public bool IsValid()
{
return false;
}
}
public class LastNameValidator : IUserInputValidator
{
public bool IsValid()
{
return true;
}
}
Change the factory interface to return just the specific types of validators:
public interface IValidatorFactory
{
IFileValidator[] GetFileValidators();
IUserInputValidator[] GetUserInputValidators();
}
Now register the validators accorindg to their "type". If a validator has multiple uses, make sure to add a .Forward<> defintion for Windsor:
var container = new WindsorContainer();
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
container.Register(
Component.For<IValidatorFactory>().AsFactory(),
Component.For<IFileValidator>().ImplementedBy<FileValidator>(),
Component.For<IUserInputValidator>().ImplementedBy<LastNameValidator>(),
Component.For<IFileValidator>().Forward<IUserInputValidator>().ImplementedBy<DobValidator>()
);