Resource Authorization with DTOs and Bus scenario - asp.net-core

On an ASP.NET Core I have the following controller:
public class MessageApiController : Controller {
private readonly IMediator _mediator;
public MessageApiController(IMediator mediator) {
_mediator = mediator;
}
[HttpGet("messages")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Get(MessageGetQuery query) {
MessageGetReply reply = await _mediator.SendAsync(query);
return Ok(reply);
}
[HttpDelete("messages")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Delete(MessageDeleteModel model) {
MessageDeleteReply reply = await _mediator.SendAsync(model);
return Ok(reply);
}
}
I have handlers classes with a method handle to perform this actions:
GET (short code for sake of simplicity)
public async MessageGetReply Handle(MessageGetQuery query) {
IQueryable<Message> messages = _context.Messages.AsQueryable();
messages = messages.Include(x => x.Author).Include(x => x.Recipients);
// Omitted: Filter messages according to query
List<Message> result = await messages.ToListAsync();
// Omitted: Create MessageGetReply from result
} // Handle
DELETE (short code for sake of simplicity)
public async MessageDeleteReply Handle(MessageDeleteModel model) {
Message message = await _context.Messages.FirstOrDefaultAsync(x => x.Id == model.Id);
if (message != null) {
_context.Remove(message);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
}
// Omitted: Return reply
} // Handle
The authorization scenario is the following:
GET
1. The user must be authenticated
2. User.Id must equal Message.RecipientId;
DELETE
1. The user must be authenticated
2. User.Id must equal Message.AuthorId;
So I created the following resource authorization handler:
public class MessageAuthorizationHandler : AuthorizationHandler<OperationAuthorizationRequirement, Message> {
protected override void Handle(AuthorizationContext context, OperationAuthorizationRequirement requirement, Message resource) {
if (requirement == Operations.Delete) {
if (resource.AuthorId.ToString() == context.User.FindFirstValue(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier))
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
if (requirement == Operations.Read) {
if (resource.RecipientId.ToString() == context.User.FindFirstValue(ClaimTypes.NameIdentifier)))
context.Succeed(requirement);
}
} // Handle
}
There are a few problems that arise:
In GET should I pass all messages to Authorization Handler?
In fact the messages are filtered by MessageGetQuery.AuthorId ...
So the authorization handler could receive MessageGetQuery.AuthorId and not a List ...
But feels strange since the resource is the List of Messages.
MessageGetQuery is simply a DTO.
Authorization could be coupled to DTOs (Query and Model) but does it make sense?
The problem arises when the DTO has less information than the Entity and I need that information to take decisions on authorization ...
If using the entities as resources I loose the ability to do projection:
IQueryable<Message> messages = _context.Messages.AsQueryable();
messages = messages.Include(x => x.Author).Include(x => x.Recipients);
// Omitted: Filter messages according to query
List<Message> result = await messages.ToListAsync();
// CALL authorization and send the resource messages ...
// Omitted: Create MessageGetReply from result
One solution would be to have a AuthorizationHandler for Read Messages, one AuthorizationHandler for Delete message ... The first one would take a list of messages, the second one message, ... I would however have to many classes.
Everything becomes simpler when using Entities directly in controllers and no DTOs but that, IMHO, should not be done ...

In RC2 we removed the object restriction in auth handlers, so you'll be able to use, for example, ints. So you could inject your repo into a handler and pull out your DTOs as you wish.

Related

Custom Result in Net 6 Minimal API

In ASP.NET Core 5 I had a custom Action Result as follows:
public class ErrorResult : ActionResult {
private readonly IList<Error> _errors;
public ErrorResult(IList<Error> errors) {
_errors = errors;
}
public override async Task ExecuteResultAsync(ActionContext context) {
// Code that creates Response
await result.ExecuteResultAsync(context);
}
}
Then on a Controller action I would have:
return new ErrorResult(errors);
How to do something similar in NET 6 Minimal APIs?
I have been looking at it and I think I should implement IResult.
But I am not sure if that is the solution or how to do it.
I have recently been playing around with minimal APIs and and working on global exception handling. Here is what I have come up with so far.
Create a class implementation of IResult
Create a constructor which will take an argument of the details you want going into your IResult response. APIErrorDetails is a custom implementation of mine similar to what you'd see in ProblemDetails in MVC. Method implementation is open to whatever your requirements are.
public class ExceptionAllResult : IResult
{
private readonly ApiErrorDetails _details;
public ExceptionAllResult(ApiErrorDetails details)
{
_details = details;
}
public async Task ExecuteAsync(HttpContext httpContext)
{
var jsonDetails = JsonSerializer.Serialize(_details);
httpContext.Response.ContentType = MediaTypeNames.Application.Json;
httpContext.Response.ContentLength = Encoding.UTF8.GetByteCount(jsonDetails);
httpContext.Response.StatusCode = _details.StatusCode;
await httpContext.Response.WriteAsync(jsonDetails);
}
}
Return result in your exception handling middleware in your Program.cs file.
app.UseExceptionHandler(
x =>
{
x.Run(
async context =>
{
// https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/error-handling?view=aspnetcore-6.0
var exceptionFeature = context.Features.Get<IExceptionHandlerPathFeature>();
// Whatever you want for null handling
if (exceptionFeature is null) throw new Exception();
// My result service for creating my API details from the HTTP context and exception. This returns the Result class seen in the code snippet above
var result = resultService.GetErrorResponse(exceptionFeature.Error, context);
await result.ExecuteAsync(context); // returns the custom result
});
}
);
If you still want to use MVC (Model-View-Controller), you still can use Custom ActionResult.
If you just want to use Minimal APIs to do the response, then you have to implement IResult, Task<IResult> or ValueTask<IResult>.
app.MapGet("/hello", () => Results.Ok(new { Message = "Hello World" }));
The following example uses the built-in result types to customize the response:
app.MapGet("/api/todoitems/{id}", async (int id, TodoDb db) =>
await db.Todos.FindAsync(id)
is Todo todo
? Results.Ok(todo)
: Results.NotFound())
.Produces<Todo>(StatusCodes.Status200OK)
.Produces(StatusCodes.Status404NotFound);
You can find more IResult implementation samples here: https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/tree/main/src/Http/Http.Results/src
Link: Minimal APIs overview | Microsoft Docs

Using Attribute and ActionFilters for logging request and response of controller and actions

I am trying to find an elegant way of logging every request and response in my Web API using Filters in Asp.net Core 3.1 rather than have them in each action and each controller.
Haven't found a nice solution that seems performable well to deploy in production.
I've been trying to do something like this (below) but no much success.
Any other suggestion would be appreciated.
public class LogFilter : IAsyncActionFilter
{
private readonly ILogger _logger;
public LogFilter(ILogger logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public async Task OnActionExecutionAsync(ActionExecutingContext context, ActionExecutionDelegate next)
{
var requestBodyData = context.ActionArguments["request"];
var responseBodyData = "";//how to get the response result
_logger.LogInformation($"{AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName} Endpoint: {nameof(context.ActionDescriptor.DisplayName)} - Request Body: {requestBodyData}");
await next();
_logger.LogInformation($"{AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName} Endpoint: {nameof(context.ActionDescriptor.DisplayName)} - Response Body: {responseBodyData}");
}
}
I think logging the response should be done in debugging mode only and really can be done at your service API (by using DI interception). That way you don't need to use IActionFilter which actually can provide you only a wrapper IActionResult which wraps the raw value from the action method (which is usually the result returned from your service API). Note that at the phase of action execution (starting & ending can be intercepted by using IActionFilter or IAsyncActionFilter), the HttpContext.Response may have not been fully written (because there are next phases that may write more data to it). So you cannot read the full response there. But here I suppose you mean reading the action result (later I'll show you how to read the actual full response body in a correct phase). When it comes to IActionResult, you have various kinds of IActionResult including custom ones. So it's hard to have a general solution to read the raw wrapped data (which may not even be exposed in some custom implementations). That means you need to target some specific well-known action results to handle it correctly. Here I introduce code to read JsonResult as an example:
public async Task OnActionExecutionAsync(ActionExecutingContext context, ActionExecutionDelegate next)
{
var requestBodyData = context.ActionArguments["request"];
_logger.LogInformation($"{AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName} Endpoint: {nameof(context.ActionDescriptor.DisplayName)} - Request Body: {requestBodyData}");
var actionExecutedContext = await next();
var responseBodyData = "not supported result";
//sample for JsonResult
if(actionExecutedContext.Result is JsonResult jsonResult){
responseBodyData = JsonSerializer.Serialize(jsonResult.Value);
}
//check for other kinds of IActionResult if any ...
//...
_logger.LogInformation($"{AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName} Endpoint: {nameof(context.ActionDescriptor.DisplayName)} - Response Body: {responseBodyData}");
}
IActionResult has a method called ExecuteResultAsync which can trigger the next processing phase (result execution). That's when the action result is fully written to the HttpContext.Response. So you can try creating a dummy pipeline (starting with a dummy ActionContext) on which to execute the action result and get the final data written to the response body. However that's what I can imagine in theory. It would be very complicated to go that way. Instead you can just use a custom IResultFilter or IAsyncResultFilter to try getting the response body there. Now there is one issue, the default HttpContext.Response.Body is an HttpResponseStream which does not support reading & seeking at all (CanRead & CanSeek are false), we can only write to that kind of stream. So there is a hacky way to help us mock in a readable stream (such as MemoryStream) before running the code that executes the result. After that we swap out the readable stream and swap back the original HttpResponseStream in after copying data from the readable stream to that stream. Here is an extension method to help achieve that:
public static class ResponseBodyCloningHttpContextExtensions
{
public static async Task<Stream> CloneBodyAsync(this HttpContext context, Func<Task> writeBody)
{
var readableStream = new MemoryStream();
var originalBody = context.Response.Body;
context.Response.Body = readableStream;
try
{
await writeBody();
readableStream.Position = 0;
await readableStream.CopyToAsync(originalBody);
readableStream.Position = 0;
}
finally
{
context.Response.Body = originalBody;
}
return readableStream;
}
}
Now we can use that extension method in an IAsyncResultFilter like this:
//this logs the result only, to write the log entry for starting/beginning the action
//you can rely on the IAsyncActionFilter as how you use it.
public class LoggingAsyncResultFilterAttribute : Attribute, IAsyncResultFilter
{
//missing code to inject _logger here ...
public async Task OnResultExecutionAsync(ResultExecutingContext context, ResultExecutionDelegate next)
{
var readableStream = await context.HttpContext.CloneBodyAsync(() => next());
//suppose the response body contains text-based content
using (var sr = new StreamReader(readableStream))
{
var responseText = await sr.ReadToEndAsync();
_logger.LogInformation($"{AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName} Endpoint: {nameof(context.ActionDescriptor.DisplayName)} - Response Body: {responseText}");
}
}
}
You can also use an IAsyncResourceFilter instead, which can capture result written by IExceptionFilter. Or maybe the best, use an IAsyncAlwaysRunResultFilter which can capture the result in all cases.
I assume that you know how to register IAsyncActionFilter so you should know how to register IAsyncResultFilter as well as other kinds of filter. It's just the same.
starting with dotnet 6 asp has HTTP logging built in. Microsoft has taken into account redacting information and other important concepts that need to be considered when logging requests.
var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);
var app = builder.Build();
/* enabled HttpLogging with this line */
app.UseHttpLogging();
if (!app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
app.UseExceptionHandler("/Error");
}
app.UseStaticFiles();
app.MapGet("/", () => "Hello World!");
app.Run();
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/http-logging/?view=aspnetcore-6.0#enabling-http-logging

How to do WaitAll with Akka.Net?

I have a hierarchy of actors in Akka.Net and am wondering whether I've chosen the right way to do something, or if there are better/simpler ways to achieve what I want.
My specific example is that I'm constructing a User actor in response to a user logging into the system, and when constructing this actor there are two pieces of data I need in order to complete the construction of the actor.
If this were regular .NET code I might have something like the following...
public Task<User> LoadUserAsync (string username)
{
IProfileService profileService = ...;
IMessageService messageService = ...;
var loadProfileTask = profileService.GetUserProfileAsync(username);
var loadMessagesTask = messageService.GetMessagesAsync(username);
Task.WaitAll(loadProfileTask, loadMessagesTask);
// Now construct the user from the result of both tasks
var user = new User
{
Profile = loadProfileTask.Result,
Messages = loadMessagesTask.Result
}
return Task.FromResult(user);
}
Here I use WaitAll to wait for the subordinate tasks to complete, and let them run concurrently.
My question is - if I wanted to do the same in Akka.Net, would the following be the most regular way to do this? Pictorially I've created the following...
When I create my User actor, I then construct a (temporary) User Loader Actor, whose job it is to get the full user details by calling to the Profile actor and the Messages actor. The leaf actors that get the data are as follows...
public class UserProfileLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public UserProfileLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg =>
{
// Load the user profile from somewhere
var profile = new UserProfile();
// And respond to the Sender
Sender.Tell(profile);
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
});
}
}
public class UserMessagesLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public UserMessagesLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg =>
{
// Load the messages from somewhere
var messages = new List<Message>();
// And respond to the Sender
Sender.Tell(messages);
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
});
}
}
It doesn't really matter where they get the data from for this discussion, but both simply respond to a request by returning some data.
Then I have the actor that coordinates the two data gathering actors...
public class UserLoaderActor : ReceiveActor
{
public UserLoaderActor()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg => LoadProfileAndMessages(msg));
Receive<UserProfile>(msg =>
{
_profile = msg;
FinishIfPossible();
});
Receive<List<Message>>(msg =>
{
_messages = msg;
FinishIfPossible();
});
}
private void LoadProfileAndMessages(LoadUserRequest msg)
{
_originalSender = Sender;
Context.ActorOf<UserProfileLoader>().Tell(msg);
Context.ActorOf<UserMessagesLoader>().Tell(msg);
}
private void FinishIfPossible()
{
if ((null != _messages) && (null != _profile))
{
_originalSender.Tell(new LoadUserResponse(_profile, _messages));
Self.Tell(PoisonPill.Instance);
}
}
private IActorRef _originalSender;
private UserProfile _profile;
private List<Message> _messages;
}
This just creates the two subordinate actors, sends them a message to get cracking, and then waits for both to respond before sending back all the data that's been gathered to the original requestor.
So, does this seem like a reasonable way to coordinate two disparate responses, in order to combine them? Is there an easier way to do this than craft it up myself?
Thanks in advance for your responses!
Thanks folks, so I've now simplified the actor significantly into the following, based on both Roger and Jeff's suggestions...
public class TaskBasedUserLoader : ReceiveActor
{
public TaskBasedUserLoader()
{
Receive<LoadUserRequest>(msg => LoadProfileAndMessages(msg));
}
private void LoadProfileAndMessages(LoadUserRequest msg)
{
var originalSender = Sender;
var loadPreferences = this.LoadProfile(msg.UserId);
var loadMessages = this.LoadMessages(msg.UserId);
Task.WhenAll(loadPreferences, loadMessages)
.ContinueWith(t => new UserLoadedResponse(loadPreferences.Result, loadMessages.Result),
TaskContinuationOptions.AttachedToParent & TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously)
.PipeTo(originalSender);
}
private Task<UserProfile> LoadProfile(string userId)
{
return Task.FromResult(new UserProfile { UserId = userId });
}
private Task<List<Message>> LoadMessages(string userId)
{
return Task.FromResult(new List<Message>());
}
}
The LoadProfile and LoadMessages methods will ultimately call a repository to get the data, but for now I have a succinct way to do what I wanted.
Thanks again!
IMHO that's a valid process, as you fork action and then join it.
BTW you could use this.Self.GracefulStop(new TimeSpan(1)); instead of sending poison pill.
You could use a combination of Ask, WhenAll and PipeTo:
var task1 = actor1.Ask<Result1>(request1);
var task2 = actor2.Ask<Result2>(request2);
Task.WhenAll(task1, task2)
.ContinueWith(_ => new Result3(task1.Result, task2.Result))
.PipeTo(Self);
...
Receive<Result3>(msg => { ... });

Adding values to header in MassTransit.RabbitMq

I am using MassTransit 3.0.0.0 and I have a hard time understanding how to intercept messages in a Request-Response scenario on their way out and add some information to the headers field that I can read on the receiver's end.
I was looking at the Middleware, as recommended in the MassTransit docs - see Observers warning - but the context you get on the Send is just a Pipe context that doesn't have access to the Headers field so I cannot alter it. I used the sample provided in Middleware page.
I then, looked at IPublishInterceptor
public class X<T> : IPublishInterceptor<T> where T : class, PipeContext
{
public Task PostPublish(PublishContext<T> context)
{
return new Task(() => { });
}
public Task PostSend(PublishContext<T> context, SendContext<T> sendContext)
{
return new Task(() => { });
}
public Task PrePublish(PublishContext<T> context)
{
context.Headers.Set("ID", Guid.NewGuid().ToString());
return new Task(() => { });
}
public Task PreSend(PublishContext<T> context, SendContext<T> sendContext)
{
context.Headers.Set("ID", Guid.NewGuid().ToString());
return new Task(() => { });
}
}
Which is very clear and concise. However, I don't know where it is used and how to link it to the rest of the infrastructure. As it stands, this is just an interface that is not really linked to anything.
If you need to add headers when a message is being sent, you can add middleware components to either the Send or the Publish pipeline as shown below. Note that Send filters will apply to all messages, whereas Publish filters will only apply to messages which are published.
// execute a synchronous delegate on send
cfg.ConfigureSend(x => x.Execute(context => {}));
// execute a synchronous delegate on publish
cfg.ConfigurePublish(x => x.Execute(context => {}));
The middleware can be configured on either the bus or individual receive endpoints, and those configurations are local to where it's configured.
You can also add headers in the consumer class:
public async Task Consume(ConsumeContext<MyMessage> context)
{
....
await context.Publish<MyEvent>(new { Data = data }, c => AddHeaders(c));
}
public static void AddHeaders(PublishContext context)
{
context.Headers.Set("CausationId", context.MessageId);
}
http://masstransit-project.com/MassTransit/advanced/middleware/custom.html
Shows adding an extension method to make it clear what you're setup. That's a big help if it's an interceptor that will be used a lot, so it's clear that purpose. You can skip that step if you want.
Basically, just...
cfg.AddPipeSpecification(new X<MyMessage>());
When configuring the transport.

Wrong Thread.CurrentPrincipal in async WCF end-method

I have a WCF service which has its Thread.CurrentPrincipal set in the ServiceConfiguration.ClaimsAuthorizationManager.
When I implement the service asynchronously like this:
public IAsyncResult BeginMethod1(AsyncCallback callback, object state)
{
// Audit log call (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
var task = Task<int>.Factory.StartNew(this.WorkerFunction, state);
return task.ContinueWith(res => callback(task));
}
public string EndMethod1(IAsyncResult ar)
{
// Audit log result (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
return ar.AsyncState as string;
}
private int WorkerFunction(object state)
{
// perform work
}
I find that the Thread.CurrentPrincipal is set to the correct ClaimsPrincipal in the Begin-method and also in the WorkerFunction, but in the End-method it's set to a GenericPrincipal.
I know I can enable ASP.NET compatibility for the service and use HttpContext.Current.User which has the correct principal in all methods, but I'd rather not do this.
Is there a way to force the Thread.CurrentPrincipal to the correct ClaimsPrincipal without turning on ASP.NET compatibility?
Starting with a summary of WCF extension points, you'll see the one that is expressly designed to solve your problem. It is called a CallContextInitializer. Take a look at this article which gives CallContextInitializer sample code.
If you make an ICallContextInitializer extension, you will be given control over both the BeginXXX thread context AND the EndXXX thread context. You are saying that the ClaimsAuthorizationManager has correctly established the user principal in your BeginXXX(...) method. In that case, you then make for yourself a custom ICallContextInitializer which either assigns or records the CurrentPrincipal, depending on whether it is handling your BeginXXX() or your EndXXX(). Something like:
public object BeforeInvoke(System.ServiceModel.InstanceContext instanceContext, System.ServiceModel.IClientChannel channel, System.ServiceModel.Channels.Message request){
object principal = null;
if (request.Properties.TryGetValue("userPrincipal", out principal))
{
//If we got here, it means we're about to call the EndXXX(...) method.
Thread.CurrentPrincipal = (IPrincipal)principal;
}
else
{
//If we got here, it means we're about to call the BeginXXX(...) method.
request.Properties["userPrincipal"] = Thread.CurrentPrincipal;
}
...
}
To clarify further, consider two cases. Suppose you implemented both an ICallContextInitializer and an IParameterInspector. Suppose that these hooks are expected to execute with a synchronous WCF service and with an async WCF service (which is your special case).
Below are the sequence of events and the explanation of what is happening:
Synchronous Case
ICallContextInitializer.BeforeInvoke();
IParemeterInspector.BeforeCall();
//...service executes...
IParameterInspector.AfterCall();
ICallContextInitializer.AfterInvoke();
Nothing surprising in the above code. But now look below at what happens with asynchronous service operations...
Asynchronous Case
ICallContextInitializer.BeforeInvoke(); //TryGetValue() fails, so this records the UserPrincipal.
IParameterInspector.BeforeCall();
//...Your BeginXXX() routine now executes...
ICallContextInitializer.AfterInvoke();
//...Now your Task async code executes (or finishes executing)...
ICallContextInitializercut.BeforeInvoke(); //TryGetValue succeeds, so this assigns the UserPrincipal.
//...Your EndXXX() routine now executes...
IParameterInspector.AfterCall();
ICallContextInitializer.AfterInvoke();
As you can see, the CallContextInitializer ensures you have opportunity to initialize values such as your CurrentPrincipal just before the EndXXX() routine runs. It therefore doesn't matter that the EndXXX() routine assuredly is executing on a different thread than did the BeginXXX() routine. And yes, the System.ServiceModel.Channels.Message object which is storing your user principal between Begin/End methods, is preserved and properly transmitted by WCF even though the thread changed.
Overall, this approach allows your EndXXX(IAsyncresult) to execute with the correct IPrincipal, without having to explicitly re-establish the CurrentPrincipal in the EndXXX() routine. And as with any WCF behavior, you can decide if this applies to individual operations, all operations on a contract, or all operations on an endpoint.
Not really the answer to my question, but an alternate approach of implementing the WCF service (in .NET 4.5) that does not exhibit the same issues with Thread.CurrentPrincipal.
public async Task<string> Method1()
{
// Audit log call (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
try
{
return await Task.Factory.StartNew(() => this.WorkerFunction());
}
finally
{
// Audit log result (uses Thread.CurrentPrincipal)
}
}
private string WorkerFunction()
{
// perform work
return string.Empty;
}
The valid approach to this is to create an extension:
public class SLOperationContext : IExtension<OperationContext>
{
private readonly IDictionary<string, object> items;
private static ReaderWriterLockSlim _instanceLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
private SLOperationContext()
{
items = new Dictionary<string, object>();
}
public IDictionary<string, object> Items
{
get { return items; }
}
public static SLOperationContext Current
{
get
{
SLOperationContext context = OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Find<SLOperationContext>();
if (context == null)
{
_instanceLock.EnterWriteLock();
context = new SLOperationContext();
OperationContext.Current.Extensions.Add(context);
_instanceLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
return context;
}
}
public void Attach(OperationContext owner) { }
public void Detach(OperationContext owner) { }
}
Now this extension is used as a container for objects that you want to persist between thread switching as OperationContext.Current will remain the same.
Now you can use this in BeginMethod1 to save current user:
SLOperationContext.Current.Items["Principal"] = OperationContext.Current.ClaimsPrincipal;
And then in EndMethod1 you can get the user by typing:
ClaimsPrincipal principal = SLOperationContext.Current.Items["Principal"];
EDIT (Another approach):
public IAsyncResult BeginMethod1(AsyncCallback callback, object state)
{
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(this.WorkerFunction, state);
var ec = ExecutionContext.Capture();
return task.ContinueWith(res =>
ExecutionContext.Run(ec, (_) => callback(task), null));
}