MVC4 Razor Update View in Real time - asp.net-mvc-4

I'm a relative noob programmer so apologies in advance!
I am writing using MVC4 and Razor and have a user selection view that can potentially lead to many web calls being made from the controller. I want to update the result view
in real-time as these web service calls return, at the minute though it seems that the controller waits until all the web calls are finished before updating the model
and rendering the result view. We have attempted to use async and await to improve things with only marginal success.
Other complications I have are that we are using an in house framework and performing other operations once the webcall returns e.g. logging \ occasional db access, all of which
lead to the controller action taking a substantial period.
To put it in context this is a monitoring application so depending on the user selections we may have 0 -> several hundred internal web service calls made on the click of a button.
So essentially I am wondering how this is best handled e.g. realtime updating of an MVC4 view where you have multiple individual web service calls, some of them potentially
lengthy e.g. up to 60seconds max.
My thoughts on how to improve things were
use SignalR and at the point where the individual webservices respond, broadcast an update to the result screen ~ however I still have the issue that the code is waiting for
my controller call to the webservices to finish before rendering the view.
to avoid wait on controller method e.g. 'output = await pc.CallApproriateSCs(selectedServiceInfoDetails);' perhaps pass all the calls off to some internal stack and have a timer
pop them and process them on a different thread in another class, this could then free my controller to display a defaulted result view immediately, letting SignalR update it in
real-time
it all seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut though, surely MVC4 has some nicer way of handling this scenario?
Thanks in advance,
N
public virtual async Task<ActionResult> MultipleCommand(ManualSelectionVM model)
{
var viewObject = new ManualSelectionResultVM();
if (model != null)
{
var input = new ServiceInfo();
//Retrieving serviceInfo object details from cache based on user selection, they are unique
List<ServiceInfo> selectedServiceInfoDetails = GetServiceInfoDetailsFromCache(GetSelectedServiceInfoIDs(model));
List<ServiceOutputCdt> output = new List<ServiceOutputCdt>();
IGenericPC pc = null;
try
{
pc = PCFactory.Create<IGenericPC>();
output = await pc.CallApproriateSCs(selectedServiceInfoDetails);
viewObject = ConvertServiceOutputIntoVM(output);
}
finally
{
AICS.ARCHITECTURE.SERVICES.CLEANUP.CleanupSVC.Cleanup(pc);
}
}
return this.View(MVC.ManualSelection.Views.Result, viewObject);
}

Related

SignalR, how to ensure that only one user can edit a given form at a time?

I have a dashboard with a list of items and a finite number of users. I want to show "an item is being edited" near said item to avoid simultaneous edits and overwrites of data.
This seems to me like updating a flag in the database and relatively simple signalr implementation with the javascript simply adding/removing a css class.
I have seen this:
Prevent multiple people from editing the same form
which describes a method with posting every X minutes and clearing the flag from the database when there are no more update messages from the user.
The issue is:
I was wondering if there was a signalr method (like disconnect; i know it exists but I don't know if it fits this scenario) to do that elegantly rather than running a timer function. If so, is it possible for the server to miss the event and permanently leave the flagged as "editing" when it is not?
you could implement a hub for this, here is a example:
public class ItemAccessHub : Hub
{
public override Task OnConnectedAsync()
{
// your logic to lock the object, set a state in the db
return base.OnConnectedAsync();
}
public override Task OnDisconnectedAsync(Exception exception)
{
// your logic to unlock the object
return base.OnDisconnectedAsync(exception);
}
}
to get information from the query you can access the HttpContext:
Context.GetHttpContext().Request.Query.TryGetValue("item-id", out var itemId)
so you could start a connection when the user is accessing the form and send the id of the item in the query:
/hub/itemAccess?item-id=ITEM_ID
and when the user closes the form then disconnect the connection.
with this method the item is also unlocked when the user loses his network connection.
the on disconnect method is allays invoked when a client disconnects, so you can do your clean up in this method.
in this hub you can than also implement the update function
i hope this is what you are looking for

MVC - what are the benefits of all controller actions being Task<ActionResult>?

I've been using MVC since version 2, and lately I have come across a project where all of the controller actions are 'async', returning Tasks, and I am trying to understand why somebody would do this.
The View Model for each view is built via an async call to an API. I understand that in order to use the await keyword one must use an async method (and return a Task), but surely without the View Model then the view will fail. There is no choice but to wait for the API to build my View Model.
public async Task<ActionResult> MyCar()
{
return View(await MyAPI.BuildMyCarViewModel());
}
For what reason would controller actions need to be asynchronous?
Let's assume that your part of code
MyAPI.BuildMyCarViewModel()
needs for execution 15 seconds. Then let's assume, that you have 10 000 users, which in range of 2 seconds decided to load some model. And then assume that you don't use caching ( for the sake of example ).
IIS by default has pool of threads 5000.
In described case application pool of IIS will be busy with 5000 threads which will translate into awaiting of your 5000 users for 5 seconds, and other 5000 users will wait until code finish executing. But with async/await .Net will generate state machine, and threads will be executed till moment of awaiting, and then threads will be released for making another useful job. And as soon as
MyAPI.BuildMyCarViewModel()
will return results, other threads or the same threads will return you result. And as outcome application pool of IIS will not be exhausted quickly for long running tasks and your users will receive response much faster, then without usage await/async. If to put simply, await/async gives you possibility to avoid thread pool exhausting quickly for long running fragments of code.
I have an MSDN article on the topic of async ASP.NET. In summary, the benefit is that the request does not take up a thread for the duration of the request. This allows your web app to scale if your backend can scale.

.NET Core alternative to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem

I'm working on implementing the ForgotPassword functionality ie in the AccountController using ASP.NET Identity as in the standard VS 2015 project template.
The problem I'm trying to solve is that when the password reset email is sent, there is a noticeable delay in the page response. If the password recovery attempt does not find an existing account then no email is sent so there is a faster response. So I think this noticeable delay can be used for account enumeration, that is, a hacker could determine that an account exists based on the response time of the forgot password page.
So I want to eliminate this difference in page response time so that there is no way to detect if an account was found.
In the past I've queued potentially slow tasks like sending an email onto a background thread using code like this:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(AccountNotification.SendPasswordResetLink),
notificationInfo);
But ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem does not exist in .NET Core, so I'm in need of some alternative.
I suppose one idea is to introduce an artificial delay in the case where no account is found with Thread.Sleep, but I'd rather find a way to send the email without blocking the UI.
UPDATE: To clarify the problem I'm posting the actual code:
[HttpPost]
[AllowAnonymous]
[ValidateAntiForgeryToken]
public async Task<IActionResult> ForgotPassword(ForgotPasswordViewModel model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
var user = await userManager.FindByNameAsync(model.Email);
if (user == null || !(await userManager.IsEmailConfirmedAsync(user)))
{
// Don't reveal that the user does not exist or is not confirmed
return View("ForgotPasswordConfirmation");
}
var code = await userManager.GeneratePasswordResetTokenAsync(user);
var resetUrl = Url.Action("ResetPassword", "Account",
new { userId = user.Id, code = code },
protocol: HttpContext.Request.Scheme);
//there is a noticeable delay in the UI here because we are awaiting
await emailSender.SendPasswordResetEmailAsync(
userManager.Site,
model.Email,
"Reset Password",
resetUrl);
return View("ForgotPasswordConfirmation");
}
// If we got this far, something failed, redisplay form
return View(model);
}
Is there a good way to handle this using other built in framework functionality?
Just don't await the task. That's then mostly-equivalent to running all of that code on the thread-pool to start with, assuming it doesn't internally await anything without calling ConfigureAwait(false). (You'll want to check that, if it's your code.)
You might want to add the task to some set of tasks which should be awaited before the server shuts down, assuming there's some appropriate notion of "requested shutdown" in ASP.NET. That's worth looking into, and would stop the notification from being lost due to unfortunate timing of the server being shut down immediately after sending the response but before sending the notification. It wouldn't help in the case where there are problems in sending the notification though, e.g. your mail server is down. At that point, the user has been told that the email is on its way, before you can really guarantee that... just something to think about.

Async ActionResult implementation is blocking

Okay,
Here I have an MVC 4 application and I am trying to create an Asynchronous ActionResult with in that.
Objective : User has a download PDF Icon on the WebPage, and downloading takes much of time. So while server is busy generating the PDF, the user shall be able to perform some actions in webpage.
(clicking "download PDF" link is sending and ajax request to the server, server is fetching some data and is pushing back the PDF)
What is happening is while I call the ajax to download the PDF it starts the process, but blocks every request until and unless it returns back to the browser. That is simple blocking request.
What I have tried so far.
1) Used AsyncController as a base class of controller.
2) Made the ActionResult to an async Task DownloadPDF(), and here I wrapped the whole code/logic to generate PDF into a wrapper. This wrapper is eventually an awaitable thing inside DownloadPDF()
something like this.
public async Task<ActionResult> DownloadPDF()
{
string filepath = await CreatePDF();
//create a file stream and return it as ActionResult
}
private async Task<string> CreatePDF()
{
// creates the PDF and returns the path as a string
return filePath;
}
YES, the Operations are session based.
Am I missing some thing some where?
Objective : User has a download PDF Icon on the WebPage, and downloading takes much of time. So while server is busy generating the PDF, the user shall be able to perform some actions in webpage.
async will not do this. As I describe in my MSDN article, async yields to the ASP.NET runtime, not the client browser. This only makes sense; async can't change the HTTP protocol (as I mention on my blog).
However, though async cannot do this, AJAX can.
What is happening is while I call the ajax to download the PDF it starts the process, but blocks every request until and unless it returns back to the browser. That is simple blocking request.
AFAIK, the request code you posted is completely asynchronous. It is returning the thread to the ASP.NET thread pool while the PDF is being created. However, there are several other aspects to concurrent requests. In particular, one common hangup is that by default the ASP.NET session state cannot be shared between multiple requests.
1) Used AsyncController as a base class of controller.
This is unnecessary. Modern controllers inspect the return type of their actions to determine whether they are asynchronous.
YES, the Operations are session based.
It sounds to me like the ASP.NET session is what is limiting your requests. See Concurrent Requests and Session State. You'll have to either turn it off or make it read-only in order to have concurrent requests within the same session.

Backbone.sync – Collection using ajax as well as Socket.IO/WebSockets

I have a Backbone application, which has a collection called Links. Links maps to a REST API URI of /api/links.
The API will give the user the latest links. However, I have a system in place that will add a job to the message queue when the user hits this API, requesting that the links in the database are updated.
When this job is finished, I would to push the new links to the Backbone collection.
How should I do this? In my mind I have two options:
From the Backbone collection, long poll the API for new links
Setup WebSockets to send a "message" to the collection when the job is done, sending the new data with it
Scrap the REST API for my application and just use WebSockets for everything, as I am likely to have more realtime needs later down the line
WebSockets with the REST API
If I use WebSockets, I'm not sure of the best way to integrate this into my Backbone collection so that it works alongside the REST API.
At the moment my Backbone collection looks like this:
var Links = Backbone.Collection.extend({
url: '/api/links'
});
I'm not sure how to enable the Backbone collection to handle AJAX and WebSockets. Do I continue to use the default Backbone.sync for the CRUD Ajax operations, and then deal with the single WebSocket connection manually? In my mind:
var Links = Backbone.Collection.extend({
url: '/api/links',
initialize: function () {
var socket = io.connect('http://localhost');
socket.on('newLinks', addLinks)
},
addLinks: function (data) {
// Prepend `data` to the collection
};
})
Questions
How should I implement my realtime needs, from the options above or any other ideas you have? Please provide examples of code to give some context.
No worries! Backbone.WS got you covered.
You can init a WebSocket connection like:
var ws = new Bakcbone.WS('ws://exmaple.com/');
And bind a Model to it like:
var model = new Backbone.Model();
ws.bind(model);
Then this model will listen to messages events with the type ws:message and you can call model.send(data) to send data via that connection.
Of course the same goes for Collections.
Backbone.WS also gives some tools for mapping a custom REST-like API to your Models/Collections.
My company has a fully Socket.io based solution using backbone, primarily because we want our app to "update" the gui when changes are made on another users screen in real time.
In a nutshell, it's a can of worms. Socket.IO works well, but it also opens a lot of doors you may not be interested in seeing behind. Backbone events get quite out of whack because they are so tightly tied to the ajax transactions...you're effectively overriding that default behavior. One of our better hiccups has been deletes, because our socket response isn't the model that changed, but the entire collection, for example. Our solution does go a bit further than most, because transactions are via a DDL that is specifically setup to be universal across the many devices we need to be able to communicate with, now and in the future.
If you do go the ioBind path, beware that you'll be using different methods for change events compared to your non-socket traffic (if you mix and match) That's the big drawback of that method, standard things like "change" becomes "update" for example to avoid collisions. It can get really confusing in late-night debug or when you have a new developer join the team. For that reason, I prefer either going sockets, or not, not a combination. Sockets have been good so far, and scary fast.
We use a base function that does the heavy lifting, and have several others that extend this base to give us the transaction functionality we need.
This article gives a great starter for the method we used.