I would like to create a custom Binding Behavior that allows me to detect ANY changes to the properties of an object, like this:
<my-form model.bind="myObject & objectObserver:myObjChanged()"></my-form>
I know that I can use Aurelia's binding engine to create a property observer, and perhaps I can build this into a custom Binding Behavior to detect the properties of the object and create property observers for each one. But I can't make sense of the binding object that is given to me inside the custom Binding Behavior. Here's my code so far:
import { inject, bindingBehavior, BindingEngine } from 'aurelia-framework';
#bindingBehavior('objectObserver')
#inject(BindingEngine)
export default class ObjectObserverBindingBehavior {
constructor(bindingEngine) {
this.bindingEngine = bindingEngine;
}
bind(binding, scope, interceptor) {
console.warn('hello', binding, scope, interceptor);
}
unbind(binding, scope) {
console.warn('observer.unbind()', binding, scope);
}
}
When the bind happens and the console text is output, I see
So I know it's working, but I don't know what the best object is to start watching. I see the bound object inside targetObserver.currentValue. Is that the best property to start watching? Is there another way that utilizes existing functionality of the Aurelia Binding Engine?
I found a solution that is not Aurelia specific, based on the Proxy functionality built into Javascript.
export function onChangeObj(object, onChange) {
// creates Proxy to detect changes in object properties and call a function
if (typeof onChange !== 'function' || typeof object !== 'object') {
throw new Error('onChangeObj: incorrect parameters');
}
const handler = {
set(obj, prop, value) {
onChange(prop, value);
return Reflect.set(obj, prop, value);
},
};
return new Proxy(object, handler);
}
In order to use it, just call it like this:
this.myObject = onChangeObj(this.myObject, () => this.myObjChanged());
Effectively, the object is replaced by a wrapper Proxy that calls the provided function every time one of the properties is modified (with the setter).
If anyone finds a solution via Aurelia Binding Behavior, I would still be interested.
Related
I don't quite fully understand this situation, where AsyncLocal instance is set at a certain point in the AuthenticationHandler, but does not reach the controller, when it is injected into the constructor.
I've made it similar to how IHttpContextAccessor works, but still nowhere near. However, if I set the AsyncLocal from a Middleware, it reaches the controller. Also, setting the HttpContext.Items property from AuthenticationHandler works just fine.
Question: How is HttpContext able to retain Items property contents all the way, and is ASP.NET runtime disposing the captured ExecutionContext of my DomainContextAccessor for some security reason because of where it is being set at?
I've made a sample app to demo this use case. I'd really appreciate someone shedding the light on this problem.
You already have a good answer on "how should I fix this?" Here's more of a description of why it's behaving this way.
AsyncLocal<T> has the same semantics as logging scopes. Because it has those same semantics, I always prefer to use it with an IDisposable, so that the scope is clear and explicit, and there's no weird rules around whether a method is marked async or not.
For specifics on the weird rules, see this. In summary:
Writing a new value to an AsyncLocal<T> sets that value in the current scope.
Methods marked async will copy their scope to a new scope the first time it's written to (and it's the new scope that is modified).
I've made it similar to how IHttpContextAccessor works, but still nowhere near.
I don't recommend copying the design of IHttpContextAccessor. It works... for that very specific use case. If you want to use AsyncLocal<T>, then use a design like this:
static class MyImplicitValue
{
private static readonly AsyncLocal<T> Value = new();
public static T Get() => Value.Value;
public static IDisposable Set(T newValue)
{
var oldValue = Value.Value;
Value.Value = newValue;
return new Disposable(() => Value.Value = oldValue);
}
}
usage:
using (MyImplicitValue.Set(myValue))
{
// Code in here can get myValue from MyImplicitValue.Get().
}
You can wrap that into an IMyImplicitValueAccessor if desired, but note that any "setter" logic should be using the IDisposable pattern as shown.
AsyncLocal instance is set at a certain point in the AuthenticationHandler, but does not reach the controller
That's because your AuthenticationHandler sets the value but doesn't call the controller after setting that value (and it shouldn't).
However, if I set the AsyncLocal from a Middleware, it reaches the controller.
That's because middleware is calls the next middleware (eventually getting to the controller). I.e., middleware is structured like this:
public async Task InvokeAsync(HttpContext context)
{
using (implicitValue.Set(myValue))
{
await _next(context);
}
}
So the controllers are in the scope of when that AsyncLocal<T> value was set.
How is HttpContext able to retain Items property contents all the way
Items is just a property bag. It doesn't have anything to do with AsyncLocal<T>. It exists because it's a property on HttpContext, and it persists because the same HttpContext instance is used throughout the request.
is ASP.NET runtime disposing the captured ExecutionContext of my DomainContextAccessor for some security reason because of where it is being set at?
Not exactly. The AsyncLocal<T> is being set just fine; it's just that the controllers are not called within the scope of that AsyncLocal<T> being set.
So what must be happening is there is a execution context change which wipes that value out. It works with in the middleware because your controller is in the same execution context as your middleware.
Change your code to this:
private static void DomainContextChangeHandler(AsyncLocalValueChangedArgs<DomainContextHolder> args)
{
Trace.WriteLine($"ThreadContextChanged: {args.ThreadContextChanged}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Current: {args.CurrentValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Previous: {args.PreviousValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Thread Id: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
Now you can see when the context changes.
Here is something you could do:
private static void DomainContextChangeHandler(AsyncLocalValueChangedArgs<DomainContextHolder> args)
{
if (args.ThreadContextChanged && (args.PreviousValue != null) && (args.CurrentValue == null))
{
Trace.WriteLine(
"***** Detected context change with a previous value but setting current " +
"value to null. Resetting value to previous.");
_domainContextCurrent.Value = args.PreviousValue;
return;
}
Trace.WriteLine($"ThreadContextChanged: {args.ThreadContextChanged}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Current: {args.CurrentValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Previous: {args.PreviousValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Thread Id: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
But, that kinda defeats the purpose of using AsyncLocal as your backing store.
My suggestion is you drop the AsyncLocal and use normal class-scoped storage:
namespace WebApp.Models
{
public interface IDomainContextAccessor
{
DomainContext DomainContext { get; set; }
}
public sealed class DomainContextAccessor : IDomainContextAccessor
{
public DomainContext DomainContext { get; set; }
}
}
And inject it as scoped instead of singleton:
services.AddScoped<IDomainContextAccessor, DomainContextAccessor>();
It will do exactly what you want without any kludges -- AND, the future you (or devs) will absolutely understand what's going on and why it is the way it is.
No middleware, no AsyncLocal funny-business. It just works.
Your answer is here:
.net core AsyncLocal loses its value
In your DomainContextAccessor class when you set new value in this line: _domainContextCurrent.Value = new DomainContextHolder { Context = value };
you create NEW ExecutionContext in current thread and child threads.
So I suppose that mvc runs like this:
Middleware thread => you set value => some child thread with Controller execution which sees parent changes
But for UserAuthenticationHandler it feels it works like this:
Some controller factory creates controller with injected IDomainContextAccessor (1 context) => mvc executes auth handler in child task where you set value and create 2 context. But it's value does not go UP to parent (where controller 1 context exists) because you create new context when you set value. Even more your code gets parents context, gets reference to its value and makes property Context = null, so you will get null in Controller.
So to fix this you need to change your code:
public class DomainContext
{
private static AsyncLocal<DomainContext> _contextHolder = new AsyncLocal<DomainContext>();
public static DomainContext Current
{
get
{
return _contextHolder.Value;
}
}
public Job JobInfo { get; set; }
public static void InitContext()
{
_contextHolder.Value = new DomainContext();
}
}
//using in middleware:
DomainContext.InitContext();
//using in auth handler:
DomainContext.Current.JobInfo = ...
In example above you don't change DomainContext reference in _contextHolder.Value;
It remains the same but you only change value of JobInfo in it later in auth handler
I want to use a custom element, bind values to it, check and manipulate them in the view model and show them in the view.
This is the container's relevant statements:
<require from = "./../userAccount/userAccount"></require>
<div class="UserAccountWrapper" repeat.for="userAccount of
userAccountsData">
<div><user-account accountDetails.bind="userAccount"></user-account></div>
</div>
This is the custom element relevant code:
import { bindable } from 'aurelia-framework';
export class UserAccount{
#bindable account;
constructor() {}
activate(account) {
this.accountDetails.CompanyName = account.CompanyName == null ? "N/A" :
account.CompanyName;
....
}
The data doesn't get binded to the custom element.
You need to use the bind callback. activate is a callback for routed pages (and some other cases I mentioned in a comment to your question). Also, the bound value is not passed as a parameter to the bind callback, but it will be set at that point. You do have to use this before the property name though.
import { bindable } from 'aurelia-framework';
export class UserAccount{
#bindable account;
bind() {
this.accountDetails.CompanyName = this.account.CompanyName == null ? "N/A" :
this.account.CompanyName;
....
}
}
Another choice is to use the ${propertyName}Changed callback. This function will be called every time the property changes. Note that this is only when the property itself changes, and not when properties on the bound property change. So you the callback won't happen if only this.account.CompanyName changes. The changed callback will provide you with the new value and old value of the property as parameters to the callback, but you can ignore the parameters if you don't want them.
import { bindable } from 'aurelia-framework';
export class UserAccount{
#bindable account;
accountChanged(newValue, oldValue) {
this.accountDetails.CompanyName = account.CompanyName == null ? "N/A" :
this.account.CompanyName;
// OR
this.accountDetails.CompanyName = newValue || "N/A";
....
}
}
In summary:
I've undefined of unknowed IProducerPlugin implementations on several assemblies located on a plugins folder.
I've a Core object stores a list of current registered users.
Core is Composition Root.
So, I need:
To create as many IProducerPlugin inherited class objects as the number of registered users.
When a new user is un/registered I need to create / release these objects.
In order to register my "plugins":
this.Kernel.Bind(b => b.FromAssembliesMatching("*")
.SelectAllClasses()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(Extensibility.IProducerPlugin))
.BindAllInterfaces());
I'm not quite figuring out how to implement this.
Could you help me please?
I'll appreciate a LOT your help.
DI containers in general and Ninject in special are not suitable to add and remove new bindings to the container during runtime. Some, like Autofac, don't even allow adding bindings once the container is created.
Ninject allows adding new bindings at any time, but you cannot, ever, remove them (*from some use cases there's Rebind, but that's not the same).
kernel.Release(object) is not removing the binding, it's only removing all references to the object that it holds.
For example:
var foo = new object();
kernel.Bind<object>().ToConstant(foo);
to allow garbage collecting of foo you can do one of the following:
kernel.Release(foo);
kernel.Dispose(); kernel = null;
and exactly this is what kernel.Release(...) is for. Maybe you could also Release a singleton and thus force ninject to create a new one on the next request. But i don't know whether this really works, and if it does, it certainly is quite an unexpected hack.
So what you should do is manage the list/dictionary yourself. You can bind and inject the list/dictionary/manager what ever you call it using ninject, but you cannot have ninject manager the list itself.
I've managed to do something like that similar using this a IBindingGenerator interface method...
I've used .BindWith<>() binding method...
this.Kernel.Bind(b => b.FromAssembliesMatching("*")
.SelectAllClasses()
.InheritedFrom(typeof(Extensibility.IProducerPlugin))
.BindWith<PluginBindingGenerator<Extensibility.IProducerPlugin>>()
);
I've implemented a IBindingGenerator:
public class PluginBindingGenerator<T> : IBindingGenerator
{
public System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<Ninject.Syntax.IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object>> CreateBindings(Type type, Ninject.Syntax.IBindingRoot bindingRoot)
{
if (type != null && !type.IsAbstract && type.IsClass && typeof(T).IsAssignableFrom(type))
{
Ninject.Syntax.IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object> syntax = bindingRoot.Bind(typeof(Extensibility.IProducerPlugin)).ToProvider(new PluginProvider());
yield return (Ninject.Syntax.IBindingWhenInNamedWithOrOnSyntax<object>)syntax;
}
}
}
public class PluginProvider : IProvider<object>
{
private System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<Domain.Identity.ClientIdentity, Extensibility.IProducerPlugin> plugins;
And then, the provider:
public PluginProvider()
{
this.plugins = new System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<Domain.Identity.ClientIdentity, Extensibility.IProducerPlugin>();
}
public object Create(IContext ctx)
{
//... I don't know what to do here...
return objects;
}
public Type Type
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
I am looking for some help creating an implementation of IScopeAccessor, or finding a new solution, that will allow me to provide an NHibernate session per ViewModel.
I know that Windsor now supports scoped lifestyles as seen (here). However the example creates the special scope with a using block and calling container.resolve within the using.
_container.Register(Component.For<A>().LifestyleScoped());
using (_container.BeginScope())
{
var a1 = _container.Resolve<A>();
var a2 = _container.Resolve<A>();
Assert.AreSame(a1, a2);
}
I can't think of a way to make this work because I don't want to pass around the container and I want the scope to be tied to the ViewModel that gets created, which will happen dynamically as they are needed.
As an alternative it looks like I can create an implementation of IScopeAccessor which, according to Krzysztof Koźmic (here) would allow me to
"... provide any scope you like. Scope is an abstract term here and it can be anything."
Unfortunately I cannot find an implementation of IScopeAccessor that isn't specific to a web based scenario and I am struggling to understand exactly what I need to do to turn "anything" into a valid scope.
I have found an example of exactly what I want to do using Ninject (http://www.emidee.net/index.php/2010/08/23/ninject-use-one-database-session-per-view-model/):
Bind<ISession>().ToMethod(ctx =>
{
var session = ctx.Kernel.Get<....>().BuildSessionFactory().OpenSession();
return session;
})
.InScope(context =>
{
var request = context.Request;
if (typeof(IViewModel).IsAssignableFrom(request.Service))
return request;
while ((request = request.ParentRequest) != null)
if (typeof(IViewModel).IsAssignableFrom(request.Service))
return request;
return new object();
});
In Ninject, the InScope indicates that any instances created by the binding should be reused as long as the object returned by the call back remains alive. Essentially, this call back returns the root level ViewModel (since ViewModels can be nested).
Any thoughts on how I can do the same thing or get the same result using Windsor?
The problem seems to be the place of creation.
If it's all about dependencies of viewmodels being constructed, you could maybe use boud lifestyle, as described in What's new...
Or you could alternatively use your own scope accessor, that is sensitive to viewmodels. for example like this:
public class ViewModelScopeAccessor : IScopeAccessor
{
private IDictionary<Guid, ILifetimeScope> scopes = new Dictionary<Guid, ILifetimeScope>();
private ILifetimeScope defaultScope;
public ViewModelScopeAccessor()
: this(new DefaultLifetimeScope())
{ }
public ViewModelScopeAccessor(ILifetimeScope defaultScope)
{
this.defaultScope = defaultScope;
}
public ILifetimeScope GetScope(CreationContext context)
{
var creator = context.Handler.ComponentModel.Implementation;
var viewModel = creator as IViewModel;
if (viewModel != null)
{
ILifetimeScope scope;
if (!scopes.TryGetValue(viewModel.UID, out scope))
{
scope = new DefaultLifetimeScope();
scopes[viewModel.UID] = scope;
}
return scope;
}
else
{
return defaultScope;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
foreach (var scope in scopes)
{
scope.Value.Dispose();
}
defaultScope.Dispose();
scopes.Clear();
}
}
for the following viewmodel interface :
public interface IViewModel
{
string DisplayName { get; }
Guid UID { get; }
}
You of course could compare the viewmodels in other ways, it's just an example.
The drawback of both, the bound lifestyle and that scope accessor, is, that it won't work, if you use a typed factory inside your viewmodel, to lazily construct objects, since the scope accessor has no idea, from which object/method its factory method was called. But I think is is a general .NET issue, since a method does actually never know, from where it has been called.
So, you could then use your own factories, that produce only one instance per factory instance and make them scoped to your viewmodels too.
Hope this helps.
I have a User model which is bundled in a module installed on my Yii application. This module is third party and I do not want to alter its code.
I also have a Cv Model that has a BELONGS_TO relation with the User model.
My question is: How can I delete the cv when a user is deleted ?
I know that I can achieve this with on delete cascade ... on mysql. However, i do need to delete other data such as a photo, files, etc.
What I have tried
I have created a component that is preloaded on my application. This component attaches to an onAfterDelete event
class EventListener extends CComponent
{
public function init() {
Yii::import("application.modules.users.models.User");
User::model()->attachEventHandler('onAfterDelete', array($this, 'deleteUser'));
}
public function deleteUser($event)
{
// stuff here ...
}
}
However this does not work.
Any suggestions ?
This may help you.
User::model() is a singleton
$user1 = User::model();
$user2 = new User; // will be used in insert action
$user3 = User::model()->findByPk(10); // will be used in update/delete action
$user1, $user2 and $user3 are completely different objects.
You can attach events to objects, in this case you have to add events to all these 3 objects individually.
$user1->attachEventHandler(...);
$user2->attachEventHandler(...);
$user3->attachEventHandler(...);
look like Yii does not provide any way to add events at Class level.
Well, guys, I have just stumbled upon the same problem and I solved it this way:
You should use the init() of a Model, not your event listener collection class.
In my case I have devModel class:
public function init()
{
parent::init();
$this->onLicenseUpdated = array(new MEventProcessor, 'licenseUpdateHandler');
}
And the handler is licenseUpdateHandler($event) in a MEventProcessor class.
This way every time you work with model instance, it'll call init() for every object and attach the event handler to every instance of this Model.
Now any time the event (in my case onLicenseUpdated()) is invoked for the model - the handler will be called too.
You could also to use Behaviors.
1 - behaviors can listen to events : you just have to override their events() method
class MyBehavior extends Behavior {
public function events() {
return [
ActiveRecord::EVENT_BEFORE_VALIDATE => 'beforeValidate',
];
}
public function beforeValidate($event) {
// ...
}
}
2 - although it is more common to attach a behavior to a component in the component's behaviors() method, you can also attach them dynamically and keep the original code unmodified :
use app\components\MyBehavior;
// attach a behavior object
$component->attachBehavior('myBehavior1', new MyBehavior);
You will find some useful documentation here :
yii 1 : http://www.yiiframework.com/doc/api/1.1/CBehavior
yii 2 : http://www.yiiframework.com/doc-2.0/guide-concept-behaviors.html