My goal is to set a username string based on the environment I'll be working on that must be:
an arbitrary string for the development and staging environment
the HttpContext.User.Identity.Name in production.
This is because I have to be able to simulate different kind of users and I achieve this by calling the FindByIdAsync method on my custom implementation of UserIdentity using this username string as a parameter, like this:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
UserManager<AppUser> userManager;
AppUser connectedUser;
public HomeController(UserManager<AppUser> usrMgr, IContextUser ctxUser)
{
connectedUser = usrMgr.FindByNameAsync(ctxUser.ContextUserId).Result;
}
}
I started creating three appsettings.{environment}.json file for the three usual development, staging and production environments; development and staging .json files both have this configuration:
...
"Data": {
...
"ConnectedUser" : "__ADMIN"
}
...
while the production environment configuration file doesn't have this key.
I have created a simple interface
public interface IContextUser
{
public string ContextUserId { get; }
}
and its implementation:
public class ContextUser : IContextUser
{
string contextUser;
IHttpContextAccessor contextAccessor;
public ContextUser(IHttpContextAccessor ctxAccessor, string ctxUser = null)
{
contextUser = ctxUser;
contextAccessor = ctxAccessor;
}
public string ContextUserId => contextUser ?? contextAccessor.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
}
Now, I thought of simply configuring the ConfigureServices method in the Startup class:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
// --- add other services --- //
string ctxUser = Configuration["Data:ConnectedUser"];
services.AddSingleton(service => new ContextUser( ??? , ctxUser ));
}
but it needs an IHttpContextAccessor object, that seems unavailable at this stage of the application. How can I solve this issue?
The HttpContextAccessor makes use of a static AsyncLocal<T> property under the covers, which means that any HttpContextAccessor implementation will access the same data. This means you can simply do the following:
services.AddSingleton(c => new ContextUser(new HttpContextAccessor(), ctxUser));
// Don't forget to call this; otherwise the HttpContext property will be
// null on production.
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
If you find this too implicit, or don't the HttpContextAccessor implementation from breaking in the future, you can also do the following:
var accessor = new HttpContextAccessor();
services.AddSingleton<IHttpContextAccessor>(accessor);
services.AddSingleton(c => new ContextUser(accessor, ctxUser));
Or you can "pull out" the registered instance out of the ServiceCollection class:
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
var accessor = (IHttpContextAccessor)services.Last(
s => s.ServiceType == typeof(IHttpContextAccessor)).ImplementationInstance;
services.AddSingleton(c => new ContextUser(accessor, ctxUser));
What I find a more pleasant solution, however, especially from a design perspective, is to split the ContextUser class; it currently seems to implement two different solutions. You can split those:
public sealed class HttpContextContextUser : IContextUser
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor accessor;
public HttpContextContextUser(IHttpContextAccessor accessor) =>
this.accessor = accessor ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("accessor");
public string ContextUserId => this.accessor.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
}
public sealed class FixedContextUser : IContextUser
{
public FixedContextUser(string userId) =>
this.ContextUserId = userId ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("userId");
public string ContextUserId { get; }
}
Now, depending on the environment you're running in, you register either one of them:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
if (this.Configuration.IsProduction())
{
services.AddSingleton<IContextUser, HttpContextContextUser>();
}
else
{
string ctxUser = Configuration["Data:ConnectedUser"];
services.AddSingleton<IContextUser>(new FixedContextUser(ctxUser));
}
}
Related
I am working with Asp.Net Core application. I have two classes namely Online and Offline. I have created interface and defined the methods in these two classes. Based on the need I have to connect to anyone of these two classes.
Previously when I worked in Asp.Net MVC, I have used unity container and Service Locator to specify the class name in XML file for invoking the class dynamically (between online and offline).
Now I want to implement the same with Asp.Net core. But I am not sure how to specify the class name outside for method invocation. Kindly help.
Thanks
In .net core dependency injection is in built. You don't need unity or any other any more.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/dependency-injection?view=aspnetcore-5.0
You can achieve what you want by using a little tweak.
//// classes
public interface IFileUploadContentProcess
{
IEnumerable<StoreOrder> ProcessUploads(IFormFile file);
}
public class ProcessExcelFiles : IFileUploadContentProcess
{
public IEnumerable<StoreOrder> ProcessUploads(IFormFile file)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class ProcessCsvFiles : IFileUploadContentProcess
{
public IEnumerable<StoreOrder> ProcessUploads(IFormFile file)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
//// register it
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddControllers();
services.AddTransient<IStoreOrderService, StoreOrderService>();
services.AddTransient<ProcessExcelFiles>();
services.AddTransient<ProcessCsvFiles>();
// Add resolvers for different sources here
services.AddTransient<Func<string, IFileUploadContentProcess>>(serviceProvider => key =>
{
return key switch
{
"xlsx" => serviceProvider.GetService<ProcessExcelFiles>(),
_ => serviceProvider.GetService<ProcessCsvFiles>(),
};
});
}
//use it
public class StoreOrderService : IStoreOrderService
{
private readonly Func<string, IFileUploadContentProcess> _fileUploadContentProcess;
public StoreOrderService(Func<string, IFileUploadContentProcess> fileUploadContentProcess)
{
_fileUploadContentProcess = fileUploadContentProcess;
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<StoreOrder>> UploadStoreOrdersAsync(IFormFile file)
{
//// passing csv to process csv type(default), if xlsx, pass xlsx
var records = _fileUploadContentProcess("csv").ProcessUploads(file);
return records;
}
}
After lot of brainstroming, I found the below solution
Create a class for ServiceLocator
public class ServiceLocator
{
private ServiceProvider _currentServiceProvider;
private static ServiceProvider _serviceProvider;
public ServiceLocator(ServiceProvider currentServiceProvider)
{
_currentServiceProvider = currentServiceProvider;
}
public static ServiceLocator Current
{
get
{
return new ServiceLocator(_serviceProvider);
}
}
public static void SetLocatorProvider(ServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
_serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
public object GetInstance(Type serviceType)
{
return _currentServiceProvider.GetService(serviceType);
}
public TService GetInstance<TService>()
{
return _currentServiceProvider.GetService<TService>();
}
}
Step 2: Create interface and inherit in the classes and define the interface methods
Step 3: Define class name in appSettings.json and read the values in startup.cs
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
//reading from appSettings.json
string strClassName = Configuration["DependencyInjection:className"];
if (strClassName == "OnlineData")
services.AddTransient<<<InterfaceName>>, <<OnlineClassName>>>();
if (strClassName == "OfflineData")
services.AddTransient<<<InterfaceName>>, <<OfflineClassName>>>();
}
Step 4: Create object for the dynamic class inside controller/action method
InterfaceNamemyService = ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<>();
I'm having issues making multitenancy work. I've tried to follow the sample here and can't see what my implementation is doing differently.
The tenants are identified by a routing parameter in the address field. This seems to work without issues (calling TryIdentifyTenant returns the correct one). I am using ASP.NET Core 3.1, together with Autofac.AspNetCore-Multitenant v3.0.1 and Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection v6.0.0.
I have made a simplification of the code (which is tested and still doesn't work). Two tenants are configured, "terminal1" and "terminal2". The output should differ depending on the tenant. However, it always returns the base implementation. In the example below, inputing "https://localhost/app/terminal1" returns "base : terminal1" and "https://localhost/app/terminal2" returns "base : terminal2". It should return "userhandler1 : terminal1" and "userhandler2 : terminal2".
HomeController:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly IUserHandler userHandler;
private readonly TerminalResolverStrategy terminalResolverStrategy;
public HomeController(IUserHandler userHandler, TerminalResolverStrategy terminalResolverStrategy)
{
this.userHandler = userHandler;
this.terminalResolverStrategy = terminalResolverStrategy;
}
public string Index()
{
terminalResolverStrategy.TryIdentifyTenant(out object tenant);
return userHandler.ControllingVncUser + " : " + (string)tenant;
}
}
UserHandler:
public interface IUserHandler
{
public string ControllingVncUser { get; set; }
}
public class UserHandler : IUserHandler
{
public UserHandler()
{
ControllingVncUser = "base";
}
public string ControllingVncUser { get; set; }
}
public class UserHandler1 : IUserHandler
{
public UserHandler1()
{
ControllingVncUser = "userhandler1";
}
public string ControllingVncUser { get; set; }
}
public class UserHandler2 : IUserHandler
{
public UserHandler2()
{
ControllingVncUser = "userhandler2";
}
public string ControllingVncUser { get; set; }
}
Startup:
public Startup(IConfiguration configuration)
{
Configuration = configuration;
}
public IConfiguration Configuration { get; }
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
services.AddControllersWithViews();
services.AddAutofacMultitenantRequestServices();
}
public void ConfigureContainer(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
builder.RegisterType<TerminalResolverStrategy>();
builder.RegisterType<UserHandler>().As<IUserHandler>();
}
public static MultitenantContainer ConfigureMultitenantContainer(IContainer container)
{
var strategy = new TerminalResolverStrategy(
container.Resolve<IOptions<TerminalAppSettings>>(),
container.Resolve<IHttpContextAccessor>());
var mtc = new MultitenantContainer(strategy, container);
mtc.ConfigureTenant("terminal1", b => b.RegisterType<UserHandler1>().As<IUserHandler>());
mtc.ConfigureTenant("terminal2", b => b.RegisterType<UserHandler2>().As<IUserHandler>());
return mtc;
}
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env, ILoggerFactory loggerFactory)
{
if (env.IsDevelopment())
{
app.UseDeveloperExceptionPage();
app.UseDatabaseErrorPage();
}
else
{
app.UseExceptionHandler("/Home/Error");
app.UseHsts();
}
loggerFactory.AddLog4Net();
app.UseHttpsRedirection();
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints =>
{
endpoints.MapControllerRoute(
name: "default",
pattern: "{terminal}/{controller=Home}/{action=Index}/{id?}");
});
}
}
Program:
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
CreateHostBuilder(args).Build().Run();
}
public static IHostBuilder CreateHostBuilder(string[] args) =>
Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args)
.UseServiceProviderFactory(new AutofacMultitenantServiceProviderFactory(Startup.ConfigureMultitenantContainer))
.ConfigureWebHostDefaults(webBuilder =>
{
webBuilder.UseStartup<Startup>();
});
}
ITenantIdentificationStrategy:
public class TerminalResolverStrategy : ITenantIdentificationStrategy
{
public IHttpContextAccessor Accessor { get; private set; }
private readonly TerminalAppSettings settings;
public TerminalResolverStrategy(
IOptions<TerminalAppSettings> options,
IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor
)
{
Accessor = httpContextAccessor;
settings = options.Value;
}
public bool TryIdentifyTenant(out object terminal)
{
HttpContext httpCtx = Accessor.HttpContext;//
terminal = null;
try
{
if (httpCtx != null &&
httpCtx.Request != null &&
httpCtx.Request.RouteValues != null &&
httpCtx.Request.RouteValues.ContainsKey("terminal"))
{
string requestedTerminal = httpCtx.Request.RouteValues["terminal"].ToString();
bool terminalExists = settings.Terminals.ContainsKey(requestedTerminal);
if (terminalExists)
{
terminal = requestedTerminal;
}
}
}
catch (Exception) {}
return terminal != null;
}
}
}
What am i doing wrong? Thanks in advance.
"Multitenancy doesn't seem to work at all" is a somewhat ambiguous statement that's hard to address. Unfortunately, I don't personally have the time to download all of your example code and try to repro the whole thing and debug into it and see exactly what's wrong. Perhaps someone else does. However, I can offer some tips as to places I'd look and things I'd try to see what's up.
Tenant ID strategy set up twice. I see in Startup.ConfigureContainer that there's a builder.RegisterType<TerminalResolverStrategy>(); line - that's going to register your strategy type as instance-per-dependency, so every time it's needed it'll be resolved fresh. I also see in Startup.ConfigureMultitenantContainer that you're manually instantiating the strategy that gets used by the multitenant container. There's a non-zero possibility that something is getting messed up there. I would pick one way to get that done - either register the strategy or manually create it - and I'd make sure that thing is a stateless singleton. (It's not registered in the example.)
Route pattern possibly questionable. I see the route pattern you have registered looks like this: {terminal}/{controller=Home}/{action=Index}/{id?}. I also see your URLs look like this: https://localhost/app/terminal1 Have you stepped into your tenant ID strategy to make sure the route parsing mechanism works right? That is, app isn't being picked up as the terminal value? Route parsing/handling can be tricky.
Possibly bad settings. The tenant ID strategy only successfully identifies a tenant if there are options that specify that the specific terminal value exists. I don't see where any of those options are configured, which means in this repo there are no tenants defined. Your strategy won't identify anything without that.
If it was me, I'd probably start with a breakpoint in that tenant ID strategy and see what's getting resolved and what's not. It seems somewhat complex from an outside perspective and that's where I'd begin. If that is working, then I'd probably also look at cleaning up the registrations so the ID strategy isn't registered twice. Finally, I get the impression that this isn't all the code in the app; I'd probably look at making a super minimal reproduction that's about the size you actually have posted here. I'd then focus on making that minimal repro work; then once it works, I'd figure out what the difference is between the repro and my larger app.
Unfortunately, that's about all I can offer you. As I mentioned, with the current environment and my current workload, I won't be able to actually sit down and reproduce the whole thing with your code. I know the integration works because I have production apps using it; and there are a lot of tests (unit and integration) to validate it works; so the part that isn't working is likely in your code somewhere... and those are the places I'd start.
So after having identified the tenant identification as the problem, it seems like RouteValues isn't resolved with the HttpContext until later in the request chain. Thus, no tenant gets resolved. It seems to me like a bug in .NET Core. The problem got bypassed by using the request path instead:
public class TerminalResolverStrategy : ITenantIdentificationStrategy
{
private readonly TerminalAppSettings settings;
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor;
public TerminalResolverStrategy(
IOptions<TerminalAppSettings> options,
IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor
)
{
this.httpContextAccessor = httpContextAccessor;
settings = options.Value;
}
public bool TryIdentifyTenant(out object terminal)
{
var httpCtx = httpContextAccessor.HttpContext;
terminal = null;
try
{
if (httpCtx != null)
{
string thisPath = httpCtx.Request.Path.Value;
var allTerminals = settings.Terminals.GetEnumerator();
while (allTerminals.MoveNext())
{
if (thisPath.Contains(allTerminals.Current.Key)) {
terminal = allTerminals.Current.Key;
return true;
}
}
}
}
catch (Exception) { }
return false;
}
}
I have the following ASP.NET Core integration test using a custom WebApplicationFactory
public class CustomWebApplicationFactory<TEntryPoint> : WebApplicationFactory<TEntryPoint>
where TEntryPoint : class
{
public CustomWebApplicationFactory()
{
this.ClientOptions.AllowAutoRedirect = false;
this.ClientOptions.BaseAddress = new Uri("https://localhost");
}
public ApplicationOptions ApplicationOptions { get; private set; }
public Mock<IClockService> ClockServiceMock { get; private set; }
public void VerifyAllMocks() => Mock.VerifyAll(this.ClockServiceMock);
protected override TestServer CreateServer(IWebHostBuilder builder)
{
this.ClockServiceMock = new Mock<IClockService>(MockBehavior.Strict);
builder
.UseEnvironment("Testing")
.ConfigureTestServices(
services =>
{
services.AddSingleton(this.ClockServiceMock.Object);
});
var testServer = base.CreateServer(builder);
using (var serviceScope = testServer.Host.Services.CreateScope())
{
var serviceProvider = serviceScope.ServiceProvider;
this.ApplicationOptions = serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<IOptions<ApplicationOptions>>().Value;
}
return testServer;
}
}
which looks like it should work but the problem is that the ConfigureTestServices method is never being called, so my mock is never registered with the IoC container. You can find the full source code here.
public class FooControllerTest : IClassFixture<CustomWebApplicationFactory<Startup>>, IDisposable
{
private readonly HttpClient client;
private readonly CustomWebApplicationFactory<Startup> factory;
private readonly Mock<IClockService> clockServiceMock;
public FooControllerTest(CustomWebApplicationFactory<Startup> factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
this.client = factory.CreateClient();
this.clockServiceMock = this.factory.ClockServiceMock;
}
[Fact]
public async Task Delete_FooFound_Returns204NoContent()
{
this.clockServiceMock.SetupGet(x => x.UtcNow).ReturnsAsync(new DateTimeOffset.UtcNow);
var response = await this.client.DeleteAsync("/foo/1");
Assert.Equal(HttpStatusCode.NoContent, response.StatusCode);
}
public void Dispose() => this.factory.VerifyAllMocks();
}
I've blogged about ASP.NET Core Integration Testing & Mocking using Moq. It's not simple and requires some setup but I hope it helps someone out. Here is the basic code you need using ASP.NET Core 3.1:
Startup
The ConfigureServices and Configure methods in your applications Startup class must be virtual. This is so that we can iherit from this class in our tests and replace production versions of certain services with mock versions.
public class Startup
{
private readonly IConfiguration configuration;
private readonly IWebHostingEnvironment webHostingEnvironment;
public Startup(IConfiguration configuration, IWebHostingEnvironment webHostingEnvironment)
{
this.configuration = configuration;
this.webHostingEnvironment = webHostingEnvironment;
}
public virtual void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) =>
...
public virtual void Configure(IApplicationBuilder application) =>
...
}
TestStartup
In your test project, override the Startup class with one that registers the mock and the mock object with IoC.
public class TestStartup : Startup
{
private readonly Mock<IClockService> clockServiceMock;
public TestStartup(IConfiguration configuration, IHostingEnvironment hostingEnvironment)
: base(configuration, hostingEnvironment)
{
this.clockServiceMock = new Mock<IClockService>(MockBehavior.Strict);
}
public override void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services
.AddSingleton(this.clockServiceMock);
base.ConfigureServices(services);
services
.AddSingleton(this.clockServiceMock.Object);
}
}
CustomWebApplicationFactory
In your test project, write a custom WebApplicationFactory that configures the HttpClient and resolves the mocks from the TestStartup, then exposes them as properties, ready for our integration test to consume them. Note that I'm also changing the environment to Testing and telling it to use the TestStartup class for startup.
Note also that I've implemented IDisposable's `Dispose method to verify all of my strict mocks. This means I don't need to verify any mocks manually myself. Verification of all mock setups happens automatically when xUnit is disposing the test class.
public class CustomWebApplicationFactory<TEntryPoint> : WebApplicationFactory<TEntryPoint>
where TEntryPoint : class
{
public CustomWebApplicationFactory()
{
this.ClientOptions.AllowAutoRedirect = false;
this.ClientOptions.BaseAddress = new Uri("https://localhost");
}
public ApplicationOptions ApplicationOptions { get; private set; }
public Mock<IClockService> ClockServiceMock { get; private set; }
public void VerifyAllMocks() => Mock.VerifyAll(this.ClockServiceMock);
protected override void ConfigureClient(HttpClient client)
{
using (var serviceScope = this.Services.CreateScope())
{
var serviceProvider = serviceScope.ServiceProvider;
this.ApplicationOptions = serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<IOptions<ApplicationOptions>>().Value;
this.ClockServiceMock = serviceProvider.GetRequiredService<Mock<IClockService>>();
}
base.ConfigureClient(client);
}
protected override void ConfigureWebHost(IWebHostBuilder builder) =>
builder
.UseEnvironment("Testing")
.UseStartup<TestStartup>();
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{
this.VerifyAllMocks();
}
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}
Integration Tests
I'm using xUnit to write my tests. Note that the generic type passed to CustomWebApplicationFactory is Startup and not TestStartup. This generic type is used to find the location of your application project on disk and not to start the application.
I setup a mock in my test and I've implemented IDisposable to verify all mocks for all my tests at the end but you can do this step in the test method itself if you like.
Note also, that I'm not using xUnit's IClassFixture to only boot up the application once as the ASP.NET Core documentation tells you to do. If I did so, I'd have to reset the mocks between each test and also you would only be able to run the integration tests serially one at a time. With the method below, each test is fully isolated and they can be run in parallel. This uses up more CPU and each test takes longer to execute but I think it's worth it.
public class FooControllerTest : CustomWebApplicationFactory<Startup>
{
private readonly HttpClient client;
private readonly Mock<IClockService> clockServiceMock;
public FooControllerTest()
{
this.client = this.CreateClient();
this.clockServiceMock = this.ClockServiceMock;
}
[Fact]
public async Task GetFoo_Default_Returns200OK()
{
this.clockServiceMock.Setup(x => x.UtcNow).ReturnsAsync(new DateTimeOffset(2000, 1, 1));
var response = await this.client.GetAsync("/foo");
Assert.Equal(HttpStatusCode.OK, response.StatusCode);
}
}
xunit.runner.json
I'm using xUnit. We need to turn off shadown copying, so any separate files like appsettings.json are placed in the right place beside the application DLL file. This ensures that our application running in an integration test can still read the appsettings.json file.
{
"shadowCopy": false
}
appsettings.Testing.json
Should you have configuration that you want to change just for your integration tests, you can add a appsettings.Testing.json file into your application. This configuration file will only be read in our integration tests because we set the environment name to 'Testing'.
The best way to handle this is to factor out parts of your Startup that will need to be substituted during test. For example, instead of calling services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(...); directly in ConfigureServices, create a virtual private method like:
protected virtual void ConfigureDatabase(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(...);
}
Then, in your test project, create a class like TestStartup which derives from your SUT's Startup class. Then, you can override these virtual methods to sub in your test services, mocks, etc.
Finally, just do something like:
builder
.UseEnvironment("Testing")
.UseStartup<TestStartup>();
You should create a fake startup:
public class FakeStartup : Startup
{
public FakeStartup(IConfiguration configuration)
: base(configuration)
{
}
public override void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
base.ConfigureServices(services);
// Your fake go here
//services.AddScoped<IService, FakeService>();
}
}
Then use it with IClassFixture<CustomWebApplicationFactory<FakeStartup>>.
Make sure to make your original ConfigureServices method virtual.
I'm trying to add controllers dynamically, the catch is that their actions are also dynamic, so I can't simply use a generic controller.
I dug through msdn and found that overriding the method Apply#IApplicationModelConvention seems to be my best option. However, the controller I add is never found by the routing system.
This is what I tried:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMvc(opts =>
{
opts.Conventions.Add(new ApplicationDescription("mdesc"));
opts.Conventions.Add(new ControllerDescription("mctrl"));
})
...
}
public class ApplicationDescription : IApplicationModelConvention
{
private readonly string _description;
public ApplicationDescription(string description)
{
_description = description;
}
public void Apply(ApplicationModel application)
{
var basec = application.Controllers[0];
var cm = new ControllerModel(typeof(MyController).GetTypeInfo(), basec.Attributes);
application.Controllers.Add(cm);
application.Properties["description"] = _description;
}
}
Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/mvc/controllers/application-model?view=aspnetcore-2.0
I'm building an application which uses AutoFac 2 for DI. I've been reading that using a static IoCHelper (Service Locator) should be avoided.
IoCHelper.cs
public static class IoCHelper
{
private static AutofacDependencyResolver _resolver;
public static void InitializeWith(AutofacDependencyResolver resolver)
{
_resolver = resolver;
}
public static T Resolve<T>()
{
return _resolver.Resolve<T>();
}
}
From answers to a previous question, I found a way to help reduce the need for using my IoCHelper in my UnitOfWork through the use of Auto-generated Factories. Continuing down this path, I'm curious if I can completely eliminate my IoCHelper.
Here is the scenario:
I have a static Settings class that serves as a wrapper around my configuration implementation. Since the Settings class is a dependency to a majority of my other classes, the wrapper keeps me from having to inject the settings class all over my application.
Settings.cs
public static class Settings
{
public static IAppSettings AppSettings
{
get
{
return IoCHelper.Resolve<IAppSettings>();
}
}
}
public interface IAppSettings
{
string Setting1 { get; }
string Setting2 { get; }
}
public class AppSettings : IAppSettings
{
public string Setting1
{
get
{
return GetSettings().AppSettings["setting1"];
}
}
public string Setting2
{
get
{
return GetSettings().AppSettings["setting2"];
}
}
protected static IConfigurationSettings GetSettings()
{
return IoCHelper.Resolve<IConfigurationSettings>();
}
}
Is there a way to handle this without using a service locator and without having to resort to injecting AppSettings into each and every class? Listed below are the 3 areas in which I keep leaning on ServiceLocator instead of constructor injection:
AppSettings
Logging
Caching
I would rather inject IAppSettings into every class that needs it just to keep them clean from the hidden dependency on Settings. Question is, do you really need to sprinkle that dependency into each and every class?
If you really want to go with a static Settings class I would at least try to make it test-friendly/fakeable. Consider this:
public static class Settings
{
public static Func<IAppSettings> AppSettings { get; set; }
}
And where you build your container:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
...
var container = builder.Build();
Settings.AppSettings = () => container.Resolve<IAppSettings>();
This would allow to swap out with fakes during test:
Settings.AppSettings = () => new Mock<IAppSettings>().Object;
Now the AppSettings class (which I assume there is only one of) you could do with regular constructor injection. I assume also that you really want to do a resolve on each call to your settings properties, thus injecting a factory delegate that retrieves an instance when needed. If this is not needed you should of course inject the IConfigurationSettings service directly.
public class AppSettings : IAppSettings
{
private readonly Func<IConfigurationSettings> _configurationSettings;
public AppSettings(Func<IConfigurationSettings> configurationSettings)
{
_configurationSettings = configurationSettings;
}
public string Setting1
{
get
{
return _configurationSettings().AppSettings["setting1"];
}
}
public string Setting2
{
get
{
return _configurationSettings().AppSettings["setting2"];
}
}
}