I am trying to call grpc server that implements code first service. I am unable to call that service from client if I add CallOptions to the service method parameters for passing bearer token.
When I execute the client it throws the following exception:
Unhandled exception. System.NotSupportedException: Specified method is not supported.
at ProtoBuf.Grpc.Internal.Proxies.ClientBase.ICustomerService_Proxy_0.ICustomerService.CreateCustomer(CreateCustomerCommand , CallOptions )
If I remove the CallOptions parameter and then execute the call it works perfectly as it should.
Additionally, Grpc.Core.Api package referenced in client and server have the same version.
Service Implementation
[Authorize]
public class CustomerService : ICustomerService
{
IMediator _mediator;
public CustomerService(IMediator mediator)
{
_mediator = mediator;
}
public Task CreateCustomer(CreateCustomerCommand request, CallOptions callOptions)
{
return _mediator.Send(request);
}
}
Can someone please tell me if I am missing anything or if I can pass token in my grpc request in a better way?
thanks #Marc Gravell for the support. I have copied the solution here:
short version: use CallContext, not CallOptions; CallContext has a .CallOptions, or many of the expected features are directly available (for example, .RequestHeaders, .CancellationToken, etc)
longer version: protobuf-net.Grpc, being code-first, attempts to unify the client and server APIs so that the same interface (presumably ICustomerService in this case) makes sense for both the client and server side. This is not possible with CallOptions (client) vs ServerCallContext (server), so protobuf-net.Grpc creates CallContext which bridges the gap between both
Related
I'm upgrading to version 107 restsharp and i'm wondering if both these options below are ok ways of doing dependency injection in dotnet with restsharp.
The documents say don't create a new restsharp for every request (connection pool exhaustion resaons) but if the httpclient is injected via the constructor will I be get the benefit of DNS resolution changes even though rest client is contained in transient scoped object (i think that's what AddHttpClient will do). I know there will be some price to pay for creating a transient object, but for a general purpose business app maybe that's fine?
Recommended way as described in the documentation
services.AddSingleton<IMyClient, MyClient>();
public class MyClient : IMyClient
{
protected readonly RestClient _restClient;
public MyClient()
{
_restClient = new RestClient();
}
}
OR: is it ok to do this?
services.AddHttpClient<IMyClient, MyClient>();
public class MyClient : IMyClient
{
protected readonly RestClient _restClient;
public MyClient(HttpClient httpClient)
{
_restClient = new RestClient(httpClient);
}
}
You should AddSingleton, not AddHttpClient as per official documentation:
https://restsharp.dev/v107/#restclient-lifecycle
If you use a dependency-injection container, register your API client as a singleton.
I believe it's becouse RestClient is managing the connection pools and addressing known issues, that AddHttpClient would typically address.
If you would use HttpClient directly, you should follow Microsofts recommendations from below URL, where you have a choice of Singleton or AddHttpClient:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/networking/http/httpclient-guidelines#recommended-use
Also, not sure how your 2nd option works at this point.
Also, great video explaining more about what AddHttpClient does (sets HttpClient as Transient etc):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Y2adsMnAA&t=335s
I am working in Multi-tenant solution primarily there are 2 type of applications
WebAPI
Console app to process message from queue
I have implemented dependency injection to inject all services. I have crated TenantContext class where I am resolving tenant information from HTTP header and it's working fine for API, but console application getting tenant information with every message (tenant info is part of queue message) so I am calling dependency injection register method on every incoming message which is not correct, do you have any suggestion/solution here?
The way I am resolving ITenantContext in API
services.AddScoped<ITenantContext>(serviceProvider =>
{
//Get Tenant from JWT token
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(tenantId))
{
//1. Get HttpAccessor and processor settings
var httpContextAccessor =
serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<IHttpContextAccessor>();
//2. Get tenant information (temporary code, we will get token from JWT)
tenantId = httpContextAccessor?.HttpContext?.Request.Headers["tenant"]
.FirstOrDefault();
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(tenantId))
//throw bad request for api
throw new Exception($"Request header tenant is missing");
}
var tenantSettings =
serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<IOptionsMonitor<TenantSettings>>();
return new TenantContext(tenantId, tenantSettings );
});
Create two different ITenantContext implementations. One for your Web API, and one for your Console application.
Your Web API implementation than might look as follows:
public class WebApiTenantContext : ITenantContext
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor accessor;
private readonly IOptionsMonitor<TenantSettings> settings;
public WebApiTenantContext(
IHttpContextAccessor accessor,
IOptionsMonitor<TenantSettings> settings)
{
// Notice how the dependencies are not used in this ctor; this is a best
// practice. For more information about this, see Mark's blog:
// https://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/03/03/InjectionConstructorsshouldbesimple/
this.accessor = accessor;
this.settings = settings;
}
// This property searches for the header each time its called. If needed,
// it can be optimized by using some caching, e.g. using Lazy<string>.
public string TenantId =>
this.accessor.HttpContext?.Request.Headers["tenant"].FirstOrDefault()
?? throw new Exception($"Request header tenant is missing");
}
Notice that this implementation might be a bit naive for your purposes, but hopefully you'll get the idea.
This class can be registered in the Composition Root of the Web API project as follows:
services.AddScoped<ITenantContext, WebApiTenantContext>();
Because the WebApiTenantContext has all its dependencies defined in the constructor, you can do a simple mapping between the ITenantContext abstraction and the WebApiTenantContext implementation.
For the Console application, however, you need a very different approach. The WebApiTenantContext, as shown above, is currently stateless. It is able to pull in the required data (i.e. TenantId) from its dependencies. This probably won't work for your Console application. In that case, you will likely need to manually wrap the execution of each message from the queue in a IServiceScope and initialize the ConsoleTenantContext at the beginning of that request. In that case, the ConsoleTenantContext would look merely as follows:
public class ConsoleTenantContext : ITentantContext
{
public string TenantId { get; set; }
}
Somewhere in the Console application's Composition Root, you will have to pull messages from the queue (logic that you likely already have), and that's the point where you do something as follows:
var envelope = PullInFromQueue();
using (var scope = this.serviceProvider.CreateScope())
{
// Initialize the tenant context
var context = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<ConsoleTenantContext>();
content.TenantId = envelope.TenantId;
// Forward the call to the message handler
var handler = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IMessageHandler>();
handler.Handle(envelope.Message);
}
The Console application's Composition Root will how have the following registrations:
services.AddScoped<ConsoleTenantContext>();
services.AddScoped<ITenentContext>(
c => c.GetRequiredServices<ConsoleTenantContext>());
With the registrations above, you register the ConsoleTenantContext as scoped. This is needed, because the previous message infrastructure needs to pull in ConsoleTenantContext explicitly to configure it. But the rest of the application will depend instead on ITenantContext, which is why it needs to be registered as well. That registration just forwards itself to the registered ConsoleTenantContext to ensure that both registrations lead to the same instance within a single scope. This wouldn't work when there would be two instances.
Note that you could use the same approach for Web API as demonstrated here for the Console application, but in practice it's harder to intervene in the request lifecycle of Web API compared to doing that with your Console application, where you are in full control. That's why using an ITenantContext implementation that is itself responsible of retrieving the right values is in this case an easier solution for a Web API, compared to the ITenantContext that is initialized from the outside.
What you saw here was a demonstration of different composition models that you can use while configuring your application. I wrote extensively about this in my series on DI Composition Models on my blog.
I have a set of AspNet WebApi-based web services and an IdentityServer3-based authentication service. All of the web services support a simple service info endpoint that we use for monitoring and diagnosis. It reports the service version and the server name. The only service that currently does not support the service info endpoint is the IdentityServer3-based authentication service.
Is there a way to add a simple endpoint to an IdentityServer3-based service? In GitHub issue 812 Brock Allen says "We have a way to add custom controllers, but it's undocumented, current unsupported, and not really done." I'd rather not take that indocumented, unsupported route.
Is there a way to modify/extend the discovery endpoint to include additional information?
Here's how I ended up coding this up. At a high level, basically I added a Controllers folder, created a AuthenticationServiceInfoController class with a single GET action method and then registered that controller during Startup. As noted in comment above, my solution had some extra complexity because my AuthenticationServiceInfoController inherited from a base ServiceInfoController defined elsewhere, but I've tried to eliminate that from this sample. So, the controller code looks like this:
[RoutePrefix("api/v1/serviceinfo")]
public class AuthencticationServiceInfoController : IServiceInfoController
{
[Route("")]
[Route("~/api/serviceinfo")]
public IHttpActionResult Get()
{
try
{
ServiceInformation serviceInfo = new ServiceInformation();
serviceInfo.ServiceVersion = Global.serviceVersion;
return Ok(serviceInfo);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return InternalServerError(ex);
}
}
}
It implements a simple interface:
public interface IServiceInfoController
{
IHttpActionResult Get();
}
And in my Startup.Configuration method where I configure Identity Server, I've got:
var idSrvFactory = new IdentityServerServiceFactory();
idSrvFactory.Register(new Registration<IServiceInfoController, Controllers.AuthencticationServiceInfoController>());
I think that's all that it took. It's in place and working in my Identity Server 3-based service.
I have created WCF service in VS2015:
[ServiceContract(CallbackContract = typeof(IMyCallback))]
public interface IMyService { }
IMyCallback looks like:
[ServiceContract]
public interface IMyCallback {
[OperationContract]
Task<string> OnServerEvent(UserAppEventData evData);
I've built the server, run it, then added service reference (by right click on solution explorer).
The client object is defined as
[CallbackBehaviorAttribute(
ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Reentrant,
IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults = true,
UseSynchronizationContext = true,
ValidateMustUnderstand = true
)]
public class QMyClient : IMyCallback { }
Automatically generated interface implementation made method in sync manner:
public string OnServerEvent(UserAppEventData evData) { }
This code does't work (and isn't asynchronous) and hangs client at OnServerEvent.
When I changed code manuallly to
public async Task<string> OnServerEvent(UserAppEventData evData)
and have done the same in auto generated "service references\...\Reference.cs, all works fine. But I don't want to change Referenece.cs every time I'm updating Service Reference.
Is there any method to force "Update Service Reference" make TBA OperationContractAttribute on callback?
At ordinary WCF service direction everything works OK, VS generates task based operations.
By default the service reference you've added to solution doesn't have asynchronous operations, but you can enable them and decide which option you use for your async methods - task-based or old-fashion asynchronous. This option is available in Advanced settings for service reference.
If you're using a svcutil tool, it will create the task-based methods by default, however, you can change that behavior by some flags like /async or /syncOnly.
What #VMAtm suggested will work out just fine.
I think, you could also use ChannelFactory for this scenario. It is very flexible and you can then await on the service operations from client side. Additional benefit, you don't need to modify client when there are these kind of changes on service side.
Something like:
var channelFactory = new ChannelFactory<IService>(
"WSHttpBinding_IService" // endpoint name
);
IService channel = channelFactory.CreateChannel();
string result = await channel.OnServerEvent();
Console.WriteLine(result);
Please note that for this scenario, you will have to import common interface library to client side as dll because then it will need to know about contracts and data contracts.
I'm in the process of converting our WCF services to use async programming. As expected the interface looks like this:
public interface IFoo
{
Task<string> DoSomething(string request);
}
On the client side I'm not creating a service reference from Visual Studio. Since I own both client and server I just share the interface with the client, then I create (and cache) a ChannelFactory. To invoke the method asynchronously I use the expected syntax:
IFoo clientChannel = channelFactory.CreateChannel();
bool result = await clientChannel.DoSomething("Hello World");
My question is: Is the IClientChannel generated by the ChannelFactory really using the async features underneath? I mean, can I be sure there's no thread blocked waiting for the server response?
Looking at the ClientBase code, async calls all boil down to:
http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#System.ServiceModel/System/ServiceModel/Channels/ServiceChannel.cs,0353de22100bb396
There doesn't seem to be any reason to think the thread would block waiting for a network response.