Extending ResourceManagerStringLocalizer functionality - asp.net-core

I am fairly new to .net core and I want to implement localization in my application. The built in ResourceManagerStringLocalizer service satisfies almost all my requirements and works great out of the box, but I want to add some custom functionality to it, without copy pasting all of the class' code and adding some to it in my own localizer. Currently I have tried deriving from the class in my own Localizer and injecting that as my IStringLocalizer:
services.AddTransient<IStringLocalizer<MyApp.SharedResource>, MyLocalizer<MyApp.SharedResource>>();
...
public class MyLocalizer<T> : ResourceManagerStringLocalizer, IStringLocalizer<T> {
public MyLocalizer(ResourceManager resourceManager, IResourceStringProvider resourceStringProvider, string baseName, IResourceNamesCache resourceNamesCache, ILogger logger) : base(resourceManager, resourceStringProvider, baseName, resourceNamesCache, logger) {
}
public override LocalizedString this[string name] {
get {
//do some custom functionality
return base[name];
}
}
public override LocalizedString this[string name, params object[] arguments] {
get {
//do some custom functionality
return base[name, arguments];
}
}
}
But this gives the following exception when trying to use it:
System.InvalidOperationException: 'Unable to resolve service for type 'System.Resources.ResourceManager' while attempting to activate 'MyApp.Services.MyLocalizer`1[MyApp.SharedResource]'.'
My question is, what's the best way to this? And whats best practice for doing things like this? I feel like this sort of stuff may come up more often in the future of this application and all help will be appreciated.

You don't have to override the built-in localizer, just implement your custom one:
public class MyLocalizer
{
private readonly IStringLocalizer _localizer;
public MyLocalizer(IStringLocalizerFactory factory)
{
var type = typeof(MyResourceType);
var assemblyName = new AssemblyName(type.GetTypeInfo().Assembly.FullName);
_localizer = factory.Create("MyResourceType", assemblyName.Name);
}
public LocalizedString this[string name]
{
get
{
// ...
return _localizer[name];
}
}
public LocalizedString this[string name, params object[] arguments]
{
get
{
// ...
return _localizer[name, arguments];
}
}
}
Then you can simple inject it to the views:
#inject MyLocalizer _loc;
<h1>#_loc["Hellow"]</h1>
or to the backend:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
private readonly MyLocalizer _loc;
public HomeController(MyLocalizer loc)
{
_loc = loc;
}
public IActionResult Index()
{
var msg = _loc["Welcome"];
//...
}
}

Related

How to write Xunit test case of factory design pattern code block which is tightly coupled?

I would like to write xunit test case of below method. Could you please suggest alternate design so i can write xunit test case with minimum change in my current project.
public ActionResult Index(int id = 0, AssetFilterType filter = AssetFilterType.All)
{
using (var tracer = new Tracer("AssetController", "Index"))
{
RemoveReturnUrl();
ViewBag.JobId = id;
var response = ContextFactory.Current.GetDomain<EmployeeDomain>().GetEmployeeFilterAsync(id,
CurrentUser.CompanyId, filter); // Not able write unit test case , please suggest alternate design.
return View("View", response);
}
}
current design is as follow
public interface IDomain
{
}
public interface IContext
{
D GetDomain<D>() where D : IDomain;
string ConnectionString { get; }
}
public class ApplicationContext : IContext
{
public D GetDomain<D>() where D : IDomain
{
return (D)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(D));
}
public string ConnectionString
{
get
{
return "DatabaseConnection";
}
}
}
public class ContextFactory
{
private static IContext _context;
public static IContext Current
{
get
{
return _context;
}
}
public static void Register(IContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
}
//var response = ContextFactory.Current.GetDomain**< EmployeeDomain>**().GetEmployeeFilterAsync(id,
CompanyId, filter);
This line serve purpose to call specific class method i.e GetEmployeeFilterAsync from EmployeeDomain. Although it is very handy and widely used in our application but due to design issue i am not able to write unit
test case.
Could you please suggest design so with the minimum change we can write unit test case.
Don't use the Service Locator anti-pattern, use Constructor Injection instead. I can't tell what AssetDomain is from the OP, but it seems as though it's the dependency that matters. Inject it into the class:
public class ProbablySomeController
{
public ProbablySomeController(AssetDomain assetDomain)
{
AssetDomain = assetDomain;
}
public AssetDomain AssetDomain { get; }
public ActionResult Index(int id = 0, AssetFilterType filter = AssetFilterType.All)
{
using (var tracer = new Tracer("AssetController", "Index"))
{
RemoveReturnUrl();
ViewBag.JobId = id;
var response = AssetDomain.GetAssetFilterAsync(id, CurrentUser.CompanyId, filter);
return View("View", response);
}
}
}
Assuming that AssetDomain is a polymorphic type, you can now write a test and inject a Test Double:
[Fact]
public void MyTest()
{
var testDouble = new AssetDomainTestDouble();
var sut = new ProbablySomeController(testDouble);
var actual = sut.Index(42, AssetFilterType.All);
// Put assertions here
}
step1 : Required library
step 2 : When the application starts , register required domain like
protected void Application_Start()
UnityConfig.RegisterComponents();
Step 3: create one static class and register all your domain
example
public static class UnityConfig
{
public static void RegisterComponents()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
Initialize domain which will injected in controller
container.RegisterType<IPricingDomain, PricingDomain>();
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new UnityDependencyResolver(container);
}
}
step 4 :
so you can inject respective interface in constructor
in controller file.
goal : get rid of below any pattern in your project.
and start writing unit test cases.

Dependency Injection in an DisplayName attribute

I have a class in which data that needs to be shown to the user is kept. I want to use Localizer for this class and ı wrote custom DisplayName Attribute class for this. But ı cant access IStringLocalizer from this class. How can i acces this class can u help me pls.
This is my Custom class.
public class CustomName:DisplayNameAttribute
{
static IStringLocalizer<CustomName> _localizer;
private readonly ServiceProvider _di;
public CustomName(IStringLocalizer<CustomName> localizer)
{
_localizer = localizer;
}
public CustomName(string key) : base(Lookup(key)) { }
static string Lookup(string key)
{
if (_localizer == null) {
//always getting here cause constructor wont run
}
try
{
return _localizer.GetString(key);
}
catch
{
return key; // fallback
}
}
}
How can i access localizer object without depencency injection ?

How can I validate different types within a collection using FluentValidation?

I have a class with a collection that needs validation. The generic on the collection takes an interface and different types can be added to the collection.
What is the cleanest path forward to creating a FluentValidation validator that supports polymorphism?
public interface IWizardStep {}
public class WizardOne : IWizardStep
{
public string Model { get; set; }
}
public class WizardTwo : IWizardStep
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
}
public class Wizard
{
public Wizard()
{
var w1 = new WizardOne();
var w2 = new WizardTwo();
Steps = new List<IWizardStep>
{
w1,
w2
};
}
public IList<IWizardStep> Steps { get; set; }
}
public class WizardValidator : AbstractValidator<Wizard>
{
public WizardValidator()
{
RuleFor(x => x.Steps)
// Steps First where is WizardOne
// Model.NotEmpty()
// Steps First where is WizardTwo
// FirstName.NotEmpty()
}
FluentValidation doesn't support polymorphism for child collections like this out of the box, but you can add this behaviour by using a custom property validator, or by using OfType in your rule definitions.
I've written about both approaches before here:
Step 1: Create a validator for each implementor
Start by creating a validator for WizardOne and WizardTwo:
public class WizardOneValidator : AbstractValidator<WizardOne> {
public WizardOneValidator() {
RuleFor(x => x.Model).NotEmpty();
}
}
public class WizardTwoValidator : AbstractValidator<WizardTwo> {
public WizardTwoValidator() {
RuleFor(x => x.FirstName).NotEmpty();
}
}
Step 2: Create the parent validator
You have two options for defining the parent validator. The simplest approach is to use OfType, but this is less performant. The more complex option is to use a custom property validator.
Option 1: Using OfType
public WizardValidator : AbstractValidator<Wizard> {
public WizardValidator() {
RuleForEach(x => x.Steps.OfType<WizardOne>()).SetValidator(new WizardOneValidator());
RuleForEach(x => x.Steps.OfType<WizardTwo>()).SetValidator(new WizardTwoValidator());
}
}
This is the simplest approach, but calling OfType inside the call RuleFor will end up bypassing FluentValidation's expression cache, which is a potential performance hit. It also iterates the collection multiple. This may or may not be an issue for you - you'll need to decide if this has any real-world impact on your application.
Option 2: Using a custom PropertyValidator.
This uses a custom custom validator which can differentiate the underlying type at runtime:
public WizardValidator : AbstractValidator<Wizard> {
public WizardValidator() {
RuleForEach(x => x.Steps).SetValidator(new PolymorphicValidator<Wizard, IWizardStep>()
.Add<WizardOne>(new WizardOneValidator())
.Add<WizardTwo>(new WizardTwoValidator())
);
}
}
Syntactically, this isn't quite as nice, but doesn't bypass the expression cache and doesn't iterate the collection multiple times. This is the code for the PolymorphicValidator:
public class PolymorphicValidator<T, TInterface> : ChildValidatorAdaptor<T, TInterface> {
readonly Dictionary<Type, IValidator> _derivedValidators = new Dictionary<Type, IValidator>();
// Need the base constructor call, even though we're just passing null.
public PolymorphicValidator() : base((IValidator<TInterface>)null, typeof(IValidator<TInterface>)) {
}
public PolymorphicValidator<T, TInterface> Add<TDerived>(IValidator<TDerived> derivedValidator) where TDerived : TInterface {
_derivedValidators[typeof(TDerived)] = derivedValidator;
return this;
}
public override IValidator<TInterface> GetValidator(PropertyValidatorContext context) {
// bail out if the current item is null
if (context.PropertyValue == null) return null;
if (_derivedValidators.TryGetValue(context.PropertyValue.GetType(), out var derivedValidator)) {
return new ValidatorWrapper(derivedValidator);
}
return null;
}
private class ValidatorWrapper : AbstractValidator<TInterface> {
private IValidator _innerValidator;
public ValidatorWrapper(IValidator innerValidator) {
_innerValidator = innerValidator;
}
public override ValidationResult Validate(ValidationContext<TInterface> context) {
return _innerValidator.Validate(context);
}
public override Task<ValidationResult> ValidateAsync(ValidationContext<TInterface> context, CancellationToken cancellation = new CancellationToken()) {
return _innerValidator.ValidateAsync(context, cancellation);
}
public override IValidatorDescriptor CreateDescriptor() {
return _innerValidator.CreateDescriptor();
}
}
}
This will probably be implemented in the library as a first class feature at some point in the future - you can track its development here if you're interested.

How to use polymorphism one method on controller actions

I tried to convert ASP.NET WEB API to ASP.NET CORE WEB API and have errors
My code in ASP.NET WebAPI
public class TestController : ApiController
{
// GET /test
public object Get()
{
return "get";
}
// GET /test?id={id}
public object Get(string id)
{
return id;
}
// GET /test?id={id}&anyParam={anyParam}
public object Get(string id, string anyParam)
{
return id + anyParam;
}
}
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute("Controller", "{controller}");
Try to convert it to ASP.NET Core 2.1 / 3.0
[ApiController]
[Route("{controller}")]
public class TestController : ControllerBase
{
// GET /test
public object Get()
{
return "get";
}
// GET /test?id={id}
public object Get(string id)
{
return id;
}
// GET /test?id={id}&anyParam={anyParam}
public object Get(string id, string anyParam)
{
return id + anyParam;
}
}
services.AddControllers();
app.UseRouting();
app.UseEndpoints(endpoints => { endpoints.MapControllers(); });
And i have in ASP.NET Core
AmbiguousMatchException: The request matched multiple endpoints
The sensible solution is just have one method that takes three parameters.
But, sensible solutions don't make for the most interesting stackoverflow answers, so here is how you can do this with two custom attributes, one which states the parameters that are required, and another which states which parameters are excluded:
public class RequireRequestParameterAttribute : ActionMethodSelectorAttribute
{
private readonly string[] _requiredNames;
public RequireRequestParameterAttribute(params string[] names)
{
this._requiredNames = names;
}
public override bool IsValidForRequest(
RouteContext routeContext,
ActionDescriptor action
) =>
this._requiredNames
.All(
routeContext
.HttpContext
.Request
.Query
.ContainsKey
);
}
public class DisallowRequestParameterAttribute : ActionMethodSelectorAttribute
{
private readonly string[] _forbiddenNames;
public DisallowRequestParameterAttribute(params string[] names)
{
this._forbiddenNames = names;
}
public override bool IsValidForRequest(
RouteContext routeContext,
ActionDescriptor action
) =>
!(this._forbiddenNames
.Any(
routeContext
.HttpContext
.Request
.Query
.ContainsKey
)
);
}
Now you can apply the attributes as follows:
[ApiController]
[Route("[controller]")]
public class TestController : ControllerBase
{
// GET test
public object Get()
{
return "Get";
}
// GET test?id={id}
[RequireRequestParameter("id")]
[DisallowRequestParameter("anyParam")]
public object Get(string id)
{
return id;
}
// GET test?id={id}&anyParam={anyParam}
[RequireRequestParameter("id", "anyParam")]
public object Get(string id, string anyParam)
{
return $"{id}: {anyParam}";
}
}
This means if you add another method with a third parameter, you have the maintenance burden of adding or modifying the DisallowRequestParameter attribute on the other methods.
I look your generated urls on actions and they are both /test which cause AmbiguousMatchException because your parameters are GET and are optional.
I think you can have same names on actions but you need define different ROUTE attribute (diff urls) on actions. Eg. you can not use default route with polymorphism on controller actions.
[Route("Home/About")]
MVC controllers Mapping of controllers now takes place inside
UseEndpoints.
Add MapControllers if the app uses attribute routing.
Source
https://learn.microsoft.com/cs-cz/aspnet/core/mvc/controllers/routing?view=aspnetcore-3.0#attribute-routing
Thanks to daremachine with his answer I was able to find information on Google
First step in ASP.NET Core we need class which inherit ActionMethodSelectorAttribute
public class RequireRequestValueAttribute : ActionMethodSelectorAttribute
{
public RequireRequestValueAttribute(string name, string value = null)
{
Name = name;
Value = value;
}
public string Name { get; }
public string Value { get; }
public StringComparison ComparisonType { get; } = StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase;
private bool ValueIsValid(object value)
{
return ValueIsValid(value?.ToString());
}
private bool ValueIsValid(string value)
{
if (Value == null)
{
return true;
}
return string.Equals(value, Value, ComparisonType);
}
public override bool IsValidForRequest(RouteContext routeContext, ActionDescriptor action)
{
var value = default(object);
if (routeContext.RouteData.Values.TryGetValue(Name, out value) && ValueIsValid(value))
return true;
if (routeContext.RouteData.DataTokens.TryGetValue(Name, out value) && ValueIsValid(value))
return true;
if (routeContext.HttpContext.Request.Query.ContainsKey(Name))
{
var values = routeContext.HttpContext.Request.Query[Name];
if (values.Count <= 0)
{
if (ValueIsValid(null))
return true;
}
else if (values.Any(v => ValueIsValid(v)))
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Then we can add to question methods [RequireRequestValue("")], the controller will look like this
[ApiController]
[Route("{controller}")]
public class TestController : ControllerBase
{
// GET /test
public object Get()
{
return "get";
}
// GET /test?id={id}
[RequireRequestValue("id")]
public object Get(string id)
{
return id;
}
}
But it can't polymorphism two similar fields, type id in my question
For asp net core 2. If you try to implement the same logic as was in web api controllers then use Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.WebApiCompatShim. This nuget package provides compatibility in ASP.NET Core MVC with ASP.NET Web API 2 to simplify migration of existing Web API implementations. Please check this answer. Starting with ASP.NET Core 3.0, the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.WebApiCompatShim package is no longer available.

ASPNET CORE - Can I add a ControllerModel in a IApplicationModelConvention?

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