I'm digging my way into Blazor, using this tutorial to create a simple demo program with a database connection.
These are the three main functions to call the controller:
protected async Task CreateEmployee() {
await http.SendJsonAsync(HttpMethod.Post, "/api/Employee/Create", emp);
UriHelper.NavigateTo("/");
}
protected async Task UpdateEmployee() {
await http.SendJsonAsync(HttpMethod.Put, "api/Employee/Edit", emp);
UriHelper.NavigateTo("/");
}
protected async Task Delete() {
await http.DeleteAsync("api/Employee/Delete/" + Convert.ToInt32(id));
UriHelper.NavigateTo("/");
}
The main functionality of creating/editing/deleting entities works fine, however the redirection afterwards only works for the latest function.
Via debugging I found out the SendJsonAsync method makes the function return without executing the following code, though in the example it seems to be working fine.
Is there an obvious solution that I'm missing?
Related
I have the following netcore 2.2 controller method that I am trying to write an xUnit integration test for:
private readonly ISoapSvc _soapSvc;
private readonly IRepositorySvc _repositorySvc;
public SnowConnectorController(ISoapSvc soapSvc, IRepositorySvc repositorySvc)
{
_soapSvc = soapSvc;
_repositorySvc = repositorySvc;
}
[Route("accept")]
[HttpPost]
[Produces("text/xml")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Accept([FromBody] XDocument soapRequest)
{
try
{
var response = new CreateRes
{
Body = new Body
{
Response = new Response
{
Status = "Accepted"
}
}
};
return Ok(response);
}
finally
{
// After the first API call completes
Response.OnCompleted(async () =>
{
// Run the close method
await Close(soapRequest);
});
}
}
The catch block runs and does the things it needs to, then the finally block runs and does things it needs to do after the request in the catch finishes per design.
Close has been both a private method . It started as a public controller method but I don't need to expose it for function so moved it to private method status.
Here's an integration test I started with the intention of just testing the try portion of the code:
[Fact]
public async Task AlwaysReturnAcceptedResponse()
{
// Arrange------
// Build mocks so that we can inject them in our system under tests constructor
var mockSoapSvc = new Mock<ISoapSvc>();
var mockRepositorySvc = new Mock<IRepositorySvc>();
// Build system under test(sut)
var sut = new SnowConnectorController(mockSoapSvc.Object, mockRepositorySvc.Object);
var mockRequest = XDocument.Load("..\\..\\..\\mockRequest.xml");
// Act------
// Form and send test request to test system
var actualResult = await sut.Accept(mockRequest);
var actualValue = actualResult.GetType().GetProperty("Value").GetValue(actualResult);
// Assert------
// The returned object from the method call should be of type CreateRes
Assert.IsType<CreateRes>(actualValue);
}
I am super new to testing... I've been writing the test and feeling my way through the problem. I started by entering the controller method not really knowing where it would go. The test works through the try method, and then an exception is thrown once it hits the delegate in the finally block.
It looks like my test will have to run through to the results of the finally block unless there is a way to tell it to stop with the catch blocks execution?
That's fine, i'm learning, but the problem with that approach for me now is that the HttpResponse's Response.OnCompleted delegate in the finally block returns null when my test is running and I haven't been successful at figuring out what I can do to not make it null - because it is null, it throws this when my unit test is executing -
System.NullReferenceException: 'Object reference not set to an instance of an object.'
*One thought that occurred was that if I was to make the private Close method a public controller method, and then make the Accept method not have the finally block, I could create a third controller method that does the try finally action by running the two controller methods and then just test the individual controller methods that are strung together with the third. However, it doesn't feel right because I would be exposing methods just for the sake of unit testing and I don't need Close to be exposed.
If the above idea is not the right approach, I am wondering what is, and if I just need to test through end to end, how I would get over the null httpresponse?
Any ideas would be appreciated. Thank you, SO community!
EDIT - Updated Test that works after the accepted answer was implemented. Thanks!
[Fact]
public async Task AlwaysReturnAcceptedResponse()
{
// Arrange------
// Build mocks so that we can inject them in our system under tests constructor
var mockSoapSvc = new Mock<ISoapSvc>();
var mockRepositorySvc = new Mock<IRepositorySvc>();
// Build system under test(sut)
var sut = new SnowConnectorController(mockSoapSvc.Object, mockRepositorySvc.Object)
{
// Supply mocked ControllerContext and HttpContext so that finally block doesnt fail test
ControllerContext = new ControllerContext
{
HttpContext = new DefaultHttpContext()
}
};
var mockRequest = XDocument.Load("..\\..\\..\\mockRequest.xml");
// Act------
// Form and send test request to test system
var actualResult = await sut.Accept(mockRequest);
var actualValue = actualResult.GetType().GetProperty("Value").GetValue(actualResult);
// Assert------
// The returned object from the method call should be of type CreateRes
Assert.IsType<CreateRes>(actualValue);
}
Curious what you are doing in the Close method against the input parameter.
Does it have to happen after response is being sent? It might not always happen as you would expect, see here.
Regardless though, during runtime asp.net core runtime sets a lot of properties on the controller including ControllerContext, HttpContext, Request, Response etc.
But those won't be available in unit testing since there is no asp.net core runtime there.
If you really want to test this, you'll have to mock them.
Here is the ControllerBase source code.
As we can see, ControllerBase.Response simply returns ControllerBase.HttpContext.Response, and ControllerBase.HttpContext is a getter from ControllerBase.ControllerContext. This means you'll have to mock a ControllerContext (and the nested HttpContext as well as HttpResponse) and assign it to your controller in the setup phase.
Furthermore, the OnCompleted callback won't get called in unit test either. If you want to unit test that part, you'll have to trigger it manually.
Personally I think it's too much hassle beside the open bug I mentioned above.
I would suggest you move the closing logic (if it's really necessary) to a IDisposable scoped service and handle that in the Dispose instead - assuming it's not a computation heavy operation which can impact the response latency.
I am using FluentValidation to validate the objects. I am simply checking checking whether the user exists in database or not. In my case, DbContext.Entity.Find works just fine but DbContext.Entity.FindAsync never returns.
Please refer to the below source code where it is happening.
public class ChangeStatusOfUserCommandValidator : AbstractValidator<ChangeStatusOfUserCommand>
{
private readonly FieldSellDbContext dbContext;
private ChangeStatusOfUserCommandValidator()
{ }
public ChangeStatusOfUserCommandValidator(FieldSellDbContext databaseContext)
{
dbContext = databaseContext;
RuleFor(u => u.UserId).NotEmpty();
RuleFor(u => u.UserId).MustAsync(UserExists).WithMessage("Provided user id already exists in the database.");
}
public async Task<bool> UserExists(int value, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
var user = await dbContext.Users.FindAsync(value, cancellationToken);
//var user = dbContext.Users.Find(value); --Works fine even in async method
return user != null;
}
}
Thanks
Your problem is almost certainly further up your call stack, where the code is calling Task<T>.Result, Task.Wait(), Task.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), or some similar blocking method. If your code blocks on asynchronous code in a single-threaded context (e.g., on a UI thread), it can deadlock.
The proper solution is to use async all the way; that is, use await instead of blocking on asynchronous code. Fluent validation has an asynchronous workflow (e.g., ValidateAsync, MustAsync), so you'll need to be sure to use that rather than the synchronous APIs.
Recently, we started to work with play 2.2. Previously we were working with play 2.1.3.
In play 2.2 it says Akka.future and async methods are seen as deprecated. Also when we tried to run below piece of code fetchSample() through a loop, it took more time to complete in play 2.2.
So how can we replace the below deprecated code with the latest one?
private static Promise<SampleDBResponseBean> fetchSample(
final Document sampleDoc) throws Exception {
Promise<SampleBean> promiseOfSampleJson = Akka.future(
new Callable<SampleBean>() {
public SampleBean call() throws Exception
{
return doSomeCalc(sampleDoc);
}
});
}
private Result getAsyncResult(final SampleResponseBean sampleDbResponseBean) {
List<F.Promise<? extends SampleDBResponseBean>> promiseList = sampleDbResponseBean
.getSampleHelperList();
Promise<List<SampleDBResponseBean>> promiseJsonObjLists = Promise
.sequence(promiseList);
return async(
promiseJsonObjLists.map(
new Function<List<SampleDBResponseBean>, Result>() {
public Result apply(List<SampleDBResponseBean> sampleList) {
SampleResponseBean sampleResponseBean = new SampleResponseBean();
sampleResponseBean.setStatus("success");
sampleResponseBean.setSampleList(sampleList);
JsonNode jsNodeResponse = Json.toJson(sampleResponseBean);
return ok(jsNodeResponse);
}
}));
}
I had searched a lot of places not seeing any solution. The problem effects our code performance when comparing to 2.1.3.
Any ideas how can we implement the deprecated methods for the above 2 methods in play 2.2?
As pointed out in the migration docs:
http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.2.x/Migration22
You want to use Promise.promise. This is also described in the documentation:
http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.2.x/JavaAsync
And of course in the API docs:
http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.2.x/api/java/play/libs/F.Promise.html#promise(play.libs.F.Function0)
One of the really nice things about Play 2.2 Java promises is now you can control exactly which execution context the code runs in, so you can create your own execution context, or get one from Akka, and so control exactly how many, in your case, concurrent DB operations are run across the whole app at the same time.
I'm using MVC 4 and I have the following code :
public void DoWork(string connectionId)
{
connectionId = this.connectionId;
var a = MakeADelayAsync();
}
public async Task MakeADelayAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(5000);
var generalHubContext = GlobalHost.ConnectionManager.GetHubContext<GeneralHub>();
generalHubContext.Clients.Client(connectionId).showNotification("Completed");
}
"DoWork" method is my mvc action. what I intent to do is when the action button is pressed the "DoWork" calls an async method and returns to the client immediately. when the async method has completed his job it will notify client using signalR.
The problem is in the "MakeADelayAsync" method, those two lines after await won't be called ever. It seems that the flow never continues after await.
First question is Where is the problem in "MakeADelayAsync" ?
Second question is why do I have to write a useless code of var a = MakeADelayAsync(); to avoid compiler warning while I'm completely aware of what I am doing? I never use "a" anyway.
"DoWork" method is my mvc action. what I intent to do is when the action button is pressed the "DoWork" calls an async method and returns to the client immediately. when the async method has completed his job it will notify client using signalR.
Doing this is extremely dangerous. I strongly recommend that you use a persistent queue, as I said in my previous answer: Azure queue, MSMQ, WebSphere MQ, etc.
However, if you insist on doing it the dangerous way, then you can use the code that I have on my blog to execute background work on ASP.NET outside of a request context:
public void DoWork(string connectionId)
{
connectionId = this.connectionId;
// This is extremely dangerous code! If ASP.NET unloads
// your app, then MakeADelayAsync may not run to completion.
BackgroundTaskManager.Run(() => MakeADelayAsync());
}
First question is Where is the problem in "MakeADelayAsync" ?
You're executing code that is attempting to resume on the request context after the request is completed and the request context is disposed. It's the same problem you had before.
Second question is why do I have to write a useless code of var a = MakeADelayAsync(); to avoid compiler warning while I'm completely aware of what I am doing?
The compiler warning is telling you that the code is almost certainly a mistake... and the compiler is right.
can you try to mark your DoWork method as async?
public async void DoWork(string connectionId)
{
connectionId = this.connectionId;
var a = MakeADelayAsync();
}
I have a question regarding the sequencing of events in the scenario where you are calling a wcf service from silverlight 3 and updating the ui on a seperate thread. Basically, I would like to know whether what I am doing is correct... Sample is as follows. This is my first post on here, so bear with me, because i am not sure how to post actual code. Sample is as follows :
//<summary>
public static void Load(string userId)
{
//Build the request.
GetUserNameRequest request =
new GetUserNameRequest { UserId = userId };
//Open the connection.
instance.serviceClient = ServiceController.UserService;
//Make the request.
instance.serviceClient.GetUserNameCompleted
+= UserService_GetUserNameCompleted;
instance.serviceClient.GetGetUserNameAsync(request);
return instance.VM;
}
/// <summary>
private static void UserService_GetUserNameCompleted(object sender, GetUserNameCompletedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
Controller.UIDispatcher.BeginInvoke(() =>
{
//Load the response.
if (e.Result != null && e.Result.Success)
{
LoadResponse(e.Result);
}
//Completed loading data.
});
}
finally
{
instance.serviceClient.GetUserNameCompleted
-= UserService_GetUserNameCompleted;
ServiceHelper.CloseService(instance.serviceClient);
}
}
So my question basically is, inside of my UI thread when I am loading the response if that throws an exception, will the "finally" block catch that ? If not, should i put another try/catch inside of the lambda where I am loading the response ?
Also, since I am executing the load on the ui thread, is it possible that the finally will execute before the UI thread is done updating ? And could as a result call the Servicehelper.CloseService() before the load has been done ?
I ask because I am having intermittent problems using this approach.
The finally block should get executed before the processing of the response inside the BeginInvoke. BeginInvoke means that the code will get executed in the next UI cycle.
Typically the best approach to this type of thing is to pull all the data you need out of the response and store it in a variable and then clean up your service code. Then make a call to BeginInvoke and update the UI using the data in the variable.