I have a legacy controller which I want to be a wrapper on the new controller (since for this particular API the legacy and current versions are the same). However when I reference the project of the new service, all of the routes of the new service are also available. So essentially I want only the routes from the current assembly to be configured.
Is this possible by cleanly specifying some option? I can see other questions where people are trying to go the other way (see here), but it doesn't help me.
You must replace the IHttpControllerTypeResolver service in your HttpConfiguration and only select the type of controllers you want.
Here's a sample which return only the controllers which are in the same assembly with HttpControllerTypeResolver
config.Services.Replace(typeof(IHttpControllerTypeResolver), new HttpControllerTypeResolver());
private class HttpControllerTypeResolver : IHttpControllerTypeResolver
{
public ICollection<Type> GetControllerTypes(IAssembliesResolver _)
{
var httpControllerType = typeof(IHttpController);
return typeof(HttpControllerTypeResolver)
.Assembly
.GetLoadableTypes()
.Where(t => t.IsClass && !t.IsAbstract && httpControllerType.IsAssignableFrom(t))
.ToList();
}
}
Related
I have cases, where I want to configure services based on objects which are registered in the dependency injection container.
For example I have the following registration for WS Federation:
authenticationBuilder.AddWsFederation((options) =>{
options.MetadataAddress = "...";
options.Wtrealm = "...";
options.[...]=...
});
My goal in the above case is to use a configuration object, which is available via the DI container to configure the WsFederation-middleware.
It looks to me that IPostConfigureOptions<> is the way to go, but until now, I have not found a way to accomplish this.
How can this be done, or is it not possible?
See https://andrewlock.net/simplifying-dependency-injection-for-iconfigureoptions-with-the-configureoptions-helper/ for the I(Post)ConfigureOptions<T> way, but I find that way too cumbersome.
I generally use this pattern:
// Get my custom config section
var fooSettingsSection = configuration.GetSection("Foo");
// Parse it to my custom section's settings class
var fooSettings = fooSettingsSection.Get<FooSettings>()
?? throw new ArgumentException("Foo not configured");
// Register it for services who ask for an IOptions<FooSettings>
services.Configure<FooSettings>(fooSettings);
// Use the settings instance
services.AddSomeOtherService(options => {
ServiceFoo = fooSettings.ServiceFoo;
})
A little more explicit, but you have all your configuration and DI code in one place.
Of course this bypasses the I(Post)ConfigureOptions<T> entirely, so if there's other code that uses those interfaces to modify the FooSettings afterwards, my code won't notice it as it's reading directly from the configuration file. Given I control FooSettings and its users, that's no problem for me.
This should be the approach if you do want to use that interface:
First, register your custom config section that you want to pull the settings from:
var fooSettingsSection = configuration.GetSection("Foo");
services.Configure<FooSettings>(fooSettingsSection);
Then, create an options configurer:
public class ConfigureWSFedFromFooSettingsOptions
: IPostConfigureOptions<Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.WsFederation.WsFederationOptions>
{
private readonly FooSettings _fooSettings;
public ConfigureWSFedFromFooSettingsOptions(IOptions<FooSettings> fooSettings)
{
_fooSettings = fooSettings.Value;
}
public void Configure(WsFederationOptions options)
{
options.MetadataAddress = _fooSettings.WsFedMetadataAddress;
options.Wtrealm = _fooSettings.WsFedWtRealm;
}
}
And finally link the stuff together:
services.AddTransient<IPostConfigureOptions<WsFederationOptions>, ConfigureWSFedFromFooSettingsOptions>();
The configurer will get your IOptions<FooSettings> injected, instantiated from the appsettings, and then be used to further configure the WsFederationOptions.
I am currently working on an Umbraco MVC 4 project version 6.0.5. The project currently uses Vega.USiteBuilder to build the appropriate document types in the backoffice based on strongly typed classes with mapping attributes. Consequently, all my razor files inherit from UmbracoTemplatePageBase
I am coming across a road block trying to invoke a HTTP GET from a razor file. For example a search form with multiple fields to submit to a controller action method, using a SurfaceController using Html.BeginUmbracoForm.
My Html.BeginUmbracoForm looks like this
#using (Html.BeginUmbracoForm("FindTyres", "TyreSearch"))
{
// Couple of filter fields
}
I basically have a scenario where I will like to retrieve some records from an external database outside of Umbraco (external to Umbraco Database) and return the results in a custom view model back to my Umbraco front end view. Once my controller and action method is setup to inherit from SurfaceController and thereafter compiling it and submitting the search, I get a 404 resource cannot be found where the requested url specified: /umbraco.RenderMVC.
Here is my code snippet:
public ActionResult FindTyres(string maker, string years, string models, string vehicles)
{
var tyreBdl = new Wheels.BDL.TyreBDL();
List<Tyre> tyres = tyreBdl.GetAllTyres();
tyres = tyres.Where(t => string.Equals(t.Maker, maker, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
&& string.Equals(t.Year, years, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
&& string.Equals(t.Model, models, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)
&& string.Equals(t.Version, vehicles, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).ToList();
var tyreSearchViewModel = new TyreSearchViewModel
{
Tyres = tyres
};
ViewBag.TyreSearchViewModel = tyreSearchViewModel;
return CurrentUmbracoPage();
}
I then resort to using standard MVC, Html.BeginForm (the only difference). Repeating the steps above and submitting the search, I get the following YSOD error.
Can only use UmbracoPageResult in the context of an Http POST when
using a SurfaceController form
Below is a snippet of the HTML BeginForm
#using (Html.BeginForm("FindTyres", "TyreSearch"))
{
// Couple of filter fields
}
I feel like I am fighting the Umbraco routes to get my controller to return a custom model back to the razor file. I have googled alot trying to figure out how to do a basic search to return a custom model back to my Umbraco front end view till the extent that I tried to create a custom route but that too did not work for me.
Does my controller need to inherit from a special umbraco controller class to return the custom model back? I will basically like to invoke a HTTP GET request (which is a must) so that my criteria search fields are reflected properly in the query strings of the url. For example upon hitting the search button, I must see the example url in my address browser bar
http://[domainname]/selecttyres.aspx/TyresSearch/FindTyresMake=ASIA&Years=1994&Models=ROCSTA&Vehicles=261
Therefore, I cannot use Surface Controller as that will operate in the context of a HTTP Post.
Are there good resource materials that I can read up more on umbraco controllers, routes and pipeline.
I hope this scenario makes sense to you. If you have any questions, please let me know. I will need to understand this concept to continue on from here with my project and I do have a deadline.
There are a lot of questions about this and the best place to look for an authoritative approach is the Umbraco MVC documentation.
However, yes you will find, if you use Html.BeginUmbracoForm(...) you will be forced into a HttpPost action. With this kind of functionality (a search form), I usually build the form manually with a GET method and have it submit a querystring to a specific node URL.
<form action="#Model.Content.Url"> ... </form>
On that page I include an #Html.Action("SearchResults", "TyresSearch") which itself has a model that maps to the keys in the querystring:
[ChildAction]
public ActionResult(TyreSearchModel model){
// Find results
TyreSearchResultModel results = new Wheels.BDL.TyreBDL().GetAllTyres();
// Filter results based on submitted model
...
// Return results
return results;
}
The results view just need to have a model of TyreSearchResultModel (or whatever you choose).
This approach bypasses the need for Umbraco's Controller implementation and very straightforward.
I have managed to find my solution through route hijacking which enabled me to return a custom view model back to my view and work with HTTP GET. It worked well for me.
Digby, your solution looks plausible but I have not attempted at it. If I do have a widget sitting on my page, I will definitely attempt to use your approach.
Here are the details. I basically override the Umbraco default MVC routing by creating a controller that derived from RenderMvcController. In a nutshell, you implement route hijacking by implementing a controller that derives from RenderMvcController and renaming your controllername after your given documenttype name. Recommend the read right out of the Umbraco reference (http://our.umbraco.org/documentation/Reference/Mvc/custom-controllers) This is also a great article (http://www.ben-morris.com/using-umbraco-6-to-create-an-asp-net-mvc-4-web-applicatio)
Here is my snippet of my code:
public class ProductTyreSelectorController : Umbraco.Web.Mvc.RenderMvcController
{
public override ActionResult Index(RenderModel model)
{
var productTyreSelectorViewModel = new ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(model);
var maker = Request.QueryString["Make"];
var years = Request.QueryString["Years"];
var models = Request.QueryString["Models"];
var autoIdStr = Request.QueryString["Vehicles"];
var width = Request.QueryString["Widths"];
var aspectRatio = Request.QueryString["AspectRatio"];
var rims = Request.QueryString["Rims"];
var tyrePlusBdl = new TPWheelBDL.TyrePlusBDL();
List<Tyre> tyres = tyrePlusBdl.GetAllTyres();
if (Request.QueryString.Count == 0)
{
return CurrentTemplate(productTyreSelectorViewModel);
}
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(maker) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(years) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(models) &&
!string.IsNullOrEmpty(autoIdStr))
{
int autoId;
int.TryParse(autoIdStr, out autoId);
tyres = tyres.Where(t => string.Equals(t.Maker, maker, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
string.Equals(t.Year, years, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
string.Equals(t.Model, models, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
t.AutoID == autoId)
.ToList();
productTyreSelectorViewModel.Tyres = tyres;
}
else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(width) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(aspectRatio) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(rims))
{
tyres = tyres.Where(t => string.Equals(t.Aspect, aspectRatio, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) &&
string.Equals(t.Rim, rims, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)).ToList();
productTyreSelectorViewModel.Tyres = tyres;
}
var template = ControllerContext.RouteData.Values["action"].ToString();
//return an empty content result if the template doesn't physically
//exist on the file system
if (!EnsurePhsyicalViewExists(template))
{
return Content("Could not find physical view template.");
}
return CurrentTemplate(productTyreSelectorViewModel);
}
}
Note my ProductTyreSelectorViewModel must inherit from RenderModel for this to work and my document type is called ProductTyreSelector. This way when my model is returned with the action result CurrentTemplate, the Umbraco context of the page is retained and my page is rendered appropriately again. This way, all my query strings will show all my search/filter fields which is what I want.
Here is my snippet of the ProductTyreSelectorViewModel class:
public class ProductTyreSelectorViewModel : RenderModel
{
public ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(RenderModel model)
: base(model.Content, model.CurrentCulture)
{
Tyres = new List<Tyre>();
}
public ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(IPublishedContent content, CultureInfo culture)
: base(content, culture)
{
}
public ProductTyreSelectorViewModel(IPublishedContent content)
: base(content)
{
}
public IList<Tyre> Tyres { get; set; }
}
This approach will work well perhaps with one to two HTTP GET forms on a given page. If there are multiple forms within in a page, then a good solution will may be to use ChildAction approach. Something I will experiment with further.
Hope this helps!
My silverlight solution has 3 project files
Silverlight part(Client)
Web part(Server)
Entity model(I maintained the edmx along with Metadata in a seperate project)
Metadata file is a partial class with relavent dataannotation validations.
[MetadataTypeAttribute(typeof(User.UserMetadata))]
public partial class User
{
[CustomValidation(typeof(UsernameValidator), "IsUsernameAvailable")]
public string UserName { get; set; }
}
Now my question is where I need to keep this class UsernameValidator
If my Metadata class and edmx are on Server side(Web) then I know I need to create a .shared.cs class in my web project, then add the proper static method.
My IsUserAvailable method intern will call a domainservice method as part of asyc validation.
[Invoke]
public bool IsUsernameAvailable(string username)
{
return !Membership.FindUsersByName(username).Cast<MembershipUser>().Any();
}
If my metadata class is in the same project as my domain service is in then I can call domain service method from my UsernameValidator.Shared.cs class.
But here my entity models and Metadata are in seperate library.
Any idea will be appreciated
Jeff wonderfully explained the asyc validation here
http://jeffhandley.com/archive/2010/05/26/asyncvalidation-again.aspx
but that will work only when your model, metadata and Shared class, all are on server side.
There is a kind of hack to do this. It is not a clean way to do it it, but this is how it would probably work.
Because the .shared takes care of the code generation it doesn't complain about certain compile errors in the #if brackets of the code. So what you can do is create a Validator.Shared.cs in any project and just make sure it generates to the silverlight side.
Add the following code. and dont forget the namespaces.
#if SILVERLIGHT
using WebProject.Web.Services;
using System.ServiceModel.DomainServices.Client;
#endif
#if SILVERLIGHT
UserContext context = new UserContext();
InvokeOperation<bool> availability = context.DoesUserExist(username);
//code ommited. use what logic you want, maybe Jeffs post.
#endif
The compiler will ignore this code part because it does not meet the condition of the if statement. Meanwhile on the silverlight client side it tries to recompile the shared validator where it DOES meet the condition of the if-statement.
Like I said. This is NOT a clean way to do this. And you might have trouble with missing namespaces. You need to resolve them in the non-generated Validator.shared.cs to finally let it work in silverlight. If you do this right you can have the validation in silverlight with invoke operations. But not in your project with models and metadata like you would have with Jeff's post.
Edit: I found a cleaner and better way
you can create a partial class on the silverlight client side and doing the following
public partial class User
{
partial void OnUserNameChanging(string value)
{
//must be new to check for this validation rule
if(EntityState == EntityState.New)
{
var ctx = new UserContext();
ctx.IsValidUserName(value).Completed += (s, args) =>
{
InvokeOperation invop = (InvokeOperation) s;
bool isValid = (bool) invop.Value;
if(!isValid)
{
ValidationResult error = new ValidationResult(
"Username already exists",
new string[] {"UserName"});
ValidationErrors.Add(error;
}
};
}
}
}
This is a method generated by WCF RIA Services and can be easily partialled and you can add out-of-band validation like this. This is a much cleaner way to do this, but still this validation now only exists in the silverlight client side.
Hope this helps
I'm trying to make a Zend_Rest_Route for a specific controller. I want the rest of my site to behave normally, except when a particular Controller (UploadAPI) is requested. I think the sytnax should be as follow, but having a hard time verifying. The examples all have to do with modules, but I don't have a module.
Is this correct?
protected function _initRestRoute() {
$this->bootstrap('frontController');
$frontController = Zend_Controller_Front::getInstance();
$restRoute = new Zend_Rest_Route($frontController, array(), array('default' => array('UploadAPI'),));
$frontController->getRouter()->addRoute('rest', $restRoute);
}
The link here
http://weierophinney.net/matthew/archives/228-Building-RESTful-Services-with-Zend-Framework.html
gives examples with modules, but I have no modules, and am assuming "default" is the module name.
So I have the API functionality working , this is how it looks. You have to add this function in Bootstrap class to initilize Zend_Rest_Route.
This will do the Zend Rest API routing only for the controllers listed in the array, the rest of the site should work as expected
protected function _initRestRoute() {
$this->bootstrap('frontController');
$frontController = Zend_Controller_Front::getInstance();
$restRouteUL = new Zend_Rest_Route($frontController, array(), array('default' => array('UploadAPI', 'LocationMatchesAPI', 'GetMatchesByIdAPI', 'AuthAPIController') ));
$frontController->getRouter()->addRoute('rest', $restRouteUL);
}
I have a route defined last in my ASP.Net MVC 2 app that will map old urls that are no longer used to the appropriate new urls to be redirected to. This route returns the action and controller that is responsible for actually performing the redirect and it also returns a url to the controller action which is the url to redirect to. Since the route is responsible for generating the new url to redirect to, it is calling the router to get the appropriate urls. This has worked just fine with .Net 3.5, but when I upgraded to .Net 4, the GetVirtualPath method throws a System.Threading.LockRecursionException: "Recursive read lock acquisitions not allowed in this mode.". The following code resolves the problem but is pretty ugly:
public static string GetActionUrl(HttpContextBase context, string routeName, object routeValues)
{
RequestContext requestContext = new RequestContext(context, new RouteData());
VirtualPathData vp = null;
try
{
vp = _Routes.GetVirtualPath(requestContext, routeName, new RouteValueDictionary(routeValues));
}
catch (System.Threading.LockRecursionException)
{
var tmpRoutes = new RouteCollection();
Router.RegisterRoutes(tmpRoutes);
vp = tmpRoutes.GetVirtualPath(requestContext, routeName, new RouteValueDictionary(routeValues));
}
if (vp == null)
throw new Exception(String.Format("Could not find named route {0}", routeName));
return vp.VirtualPath;
}
Does anybody know what changes in .Net 4 might have caused this error? Also, is calling a route from another route's GetRouteData method just bad practice and something I should not be doing at all?
As you figured out, it is not supported to call a route in the global route table from within another route in the global route table.
The global route table is a thread-safe collection to enable multiple readers or a single router. Unfortunately the code you have was never supported, even in .NET 3.5, though in some scenarios it may have coincidentally worked.
As a general note, routes should function independent of one another, so I'm not sure what your scenario is here.
v3.5 RouteCollection uses the following code:
private ReaderWriterLockSlim _rwLock;
public IDisposable GetReadLock()
{
this._rwLock.EnterReadLock();
return new ReadLockDisposable(this._rwLock);
}
v4.0 RouteCollection uses the following code:
private ReaderWriterLock _rwLock;
public IDisposable GetReadLock()
{
this._rwLock.AcquireReaderLock(-1);
return new ReadLockDisposable(this._rwLock);
}
GetRouteData(HttpContextBase httpContext) in both versions use the following code:
public RouteData GetRouteData(HttpContextBase httpContext)
{
...
using (this.GetReadLock())
{
GetVirtualPath uses the same logic.
The ReaderWriterLock used in v4.0 does not allow Recursive read locks by default which is why the error is occurring.
Copy routes to a new RouteCollection for second query, or change the ReaderWriterLock mode by reflecting in.