I have built a cloud project for a month. My problem is that:
I have 2 classes to connect with Ibm web service. First class is the main class and the second one is test class. I put a key-value to appSetting in Config File.
If value in configFile is "TEST", the project will use test class and if value is the "PROD", the project will use main class. When I change the value in config, I will not change everywhere.
My Manager gave me advice to use "interface" but I didn't understand.
How can I solve this problem basiclly?
Both your test class and prod class could implement the said interface. If you need to use the approach where you do the selection in the config file of which class to use you are probably better off creating a data factory class that returns the correct implementation of the interface. The data factory reads the config file and depending on the value in app settings returns the correct class that implements the interface.
Example of doing this in C# (the concept is the same in other oo languages as well):
From the calling class:
SomethingFactory factory = new SomethingFactory();
ISomething testOrProdObj = factory.GetCorrectImplementation();
var result = testOrProdObj.MyMethod();
And in the factory class:
public class SomethingFactory
{
public ISomething GetCorrectImplementation()
{
//Do a check in appsettings to decide which class (TESTSomething or PRODSomething) to instantiate and return
}
}
Implementation of the interface
public class TESTSomething : ISomething
or
public class PRODSomething : ISomething
Related
I'd like to write a little stub for a service class. The reason is, that I don't want to push the secret API keys that the service class needs to the CI and I don't want the service class in the CI to run against the external service anyways.
However, the service class is non-abstract and has a private constructor.
When I try to create my stub class like:
open class FirebaseMock: FirebaseMessaging {
// implemented functions go here
}
it says
This type has a constructor, and thus must be initialized here
If I try to initialize it like:
open class FirebaseMock: FirebaseMessaging() {
// implemented functions go here
}
it goes
Cannot access '<init>': it is private in 'FirebaseMessaging'
Which is true:
private FirebaseMessaging(Builder builder) {
...
All I want to do is make my stub class formally a subclass of FirebaseMessaging to use it as placeholder, that mocks the FirebaseMessaging-Functionality when the API keys are not present.
How can I just implement a non-abstract, non-interface class, that has a private constructor nonetheless.
My current solution is a wrapper, which works but is not as nice.
Mockito etc. does not seem like a good solution, since this is still in the productive code.
I am using the following Ninject related nuget packages in an MVC 5 WebAPI application:
Ninject.MVC5
Ninject.Extensions.Factory
ninject.extensions.conventions
I have a simple repository and a corresponding factory class like so:
public interface ITaskRunner
{
void Run();
}
public interface IRepository<T> where T: class
{
T[] GetAll();
}
public interface IRepositoryFactory<T> where T: class
{
IRepository<T> CreateRepository();
}
I have setup the Ninject bindings using ToFactory() from Ninject.Extensions.Factory like so:
kernel.Bind<ITaskRunner>().To<TaskRunner>().InSingletonScope();
kernel.Bind(typeof(IRepository<>)).To(typeof(Repository<>)).InRequestScope();
kernel.Bind<IRepositoryFactory<Contact>>().ToFactory();
I am using the factory in the following class:
public class TaskRunner : ITaskRunner
{
//MyTask is a simple POCO class(not shown for brevity)
IRepositoryFactory<MyTask> repoFactory = null;
IRepository<MyTask> repo = null;
public TaskRunner(IRepositoryFactory<MyTask> repoFactory)
{
this.repoFactory = repoFactory;
repo = repoFactory.CreateRepository();
}
//implementation elided
}
I am noticing that the call to repoFactory.CreateRepository() always returns the same instance of the factory (dynamic proxy) that Ninject generates.
Question : Is there a way to change/control this behavior and set a "lifetime" such as Transient, PerThread etc. for the instance that "CreateRepository" returns?
In this particular case, tasks might be processed asynchronously on multiple threads and the repository is not thread safe and hence singleton behavior for the instance returned from "CreateRepository" is not desirable.
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, but results you are seeing are quite expected because your TaskRunner is bound as Singleton (so constructed once), and you retrieve your repository in the TaskRunner constructor, which again happens once, and so repo is always the same instance. Note this happens regardless of how you bind IRepository and IRepositoryFactory, see Captive Dependency post by Mark Seemann for details http://blog.ploeh.dk/2014/06/02/captive-dependency/.
In fact, if you need to create repo in the constructor, you could just inject IRepository itself. The power of the Factory extension lies in the fact that it allows to resolve instances at runtime, not construction time. For example, if your TaskRunner has Run() method, you can create repository in it, so each task to run can have its own instance.
I am trying to consume WCF in my MVC web app. I have implemented the channel factory for instantiating the proxy client.
I am stuck at a point. Here is the code highlight -
I created a proxy base class where i am creating the channel :
public abstract class ServiceProxyBase<T> : IDisposable where T : class
For creating teh proxy wrapper class i have inherited this base class as :
public class ProxyWrapper : ServiceProxyBase<IMyService>,IMyService
Here "IMyService" is the WCf contract.
Now, in the controllers i have added overloaded constructors as :
public class AccountController : Controller
{
private IMyService businessService;
public AccountController(IMyService _businessService)
{
this.businessService = _businessService;
}
}
For injecting dependency I have included unity.mvc4 package.
It works fine when I am using the following code :
container.RegisterType<IMyService, ProxyWrapper>();
This works as long as the ProxyWrapper is inheriting the IMyService interface directly. If i remove the inheritance like
public class ProxyWrapper : ServiceProxyBase<IMyService>
it gives an error while registering type.
I would like to have a way without inherting the contract in the proxy wrapper. I have spent almost a day trying to fix this. But am able to figure out a solution.
Please give your valuable suggestions on this.
If I understand correctly, your application is using a WCF service but the functionality your application needs is limited compared to the functionality that the service offers (it contains more methods than you need). According to the Interface Segregation Principle, "no client should be forced to depend on methods it does not use" and the Dependency Inversion Principle states that clients own the abstraction.
In other words, you should define your own interface that the application should use and define an implementation that wraps (i.e. composition over inheritance) the generated WCF proxy class.
For instance:
public interface IMyApplicationService
{
object GetStuff();
void PutStuff(object instance);
}
public class MyServiceApplicationProxy : IMyApplicationService
{
private readonly ProxyWrapper wcfProxy;
public MyServiceApplicationProxy(ProxyWrapper wcfProxy) {
this.wcfProxy = wcfProxy;
}
public object GetStuff() {
return this.wcfProxy.GetStuff();
}
public void PutStuff(object instance) {
this.wcfProxy.PutStuff(instance);
}
}
To make application development easier, makes your code easier to read, maintain and test.
You might even want to change the methods of your interface to better suit your application needs. Remember: the client defines the interface! So that might mean that you need to do more mapping inside the MyServiceApplicationProxy class to map adapt your core domain to the contract of the external web service. Don't let the external WCF service's contract leak into your core domain.
I've started playing with Wicket and I've chosen Guice as dependency injection framework. Now I'm trying to learn how to write a unit test for a WebPage object.
I googled a bit and I've found this post but it mentioned AtUnit so I decided to give it a try.
My WebPage class looks like this
public class MyWebPage extends WebPage
{
#Inject MyService service;
public MyWebPage()
{
//here I build my components and use injected object.
service.get(id);
....
}
}
I created mock to replace any production MyServiceImpl with it and I guess that Guice in hand with AtUnit should inject it.
Now the problems are:
AtUnit expects that I mark target object with #Unit - that is all right as I can pass already created object to WicketTester
#Unit MyWebPage page = new MyWebPage();
wicketTester.startPage(page);
but usually I would call startPage with class name.
I think AtUnit expects as well that a target object is market with #Inject so AtUnit can create and manage it - but I get an org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: There is no application attached to current thread main. Can I instruct AtUnit to use application from wicketTester?
Because I don't use #Inject at MyWebPage (I think) all object that should be injected by Guice are null (in my example the service reference is null)
I really can't find anything about AtUnit inside Wicket environment. Am I doing something wrong, am I missing something?
I don't know AtUnit but I use wicket with guice and TestNG. I imagine that AtUnit should work the same way. The important point is the creation of the web application with the use of guice.
Here how I bind all this stuff together for my tests.
I have an abstract base class for all my tests:
public abstract class TesterWicket<T extends Component> {
#BeforeClass
public void buildMockedTester() {
System.out.println("TesterWww.buildMockedTester");
injector = Guice.createInjector(buildModules());
CoachWebApplicationFactory instance =
injector.getInstance(CoachWebApplicationFactory.class);
WebApplication application = instance.buildWebApplication();
tester = new WicketTester(application);
}
protected abstract List<Module> buildModules();
The initialization is done for every test class. The subclass defines the necessary modules for the test in the buildModules method.
In my IWebApplicationFactory I add the GuiceComponentInjector. That way, after all component instantiation, the fields annotated with #Inject are filled by Guice:
public class CoachWebApplicationFactory implements IWebApplicationFactory {
private static Logger LOG = LoggerFactory.getLogger(CoachWebApplicationFactory.class);
private final Injector injector;
#Inject
public CoachWebApplicationFactory(Injector injector) {
this.injector = injector;
}
public WebApplication createApplication(WicketFilter filter) {
WebApplication app = injector.getInstance(WebApplication.class);
Application.set(app);
app.addComponentInstantiationListener(new GuiceComponentInjector(app, injector));
return app;
}
}
I have looked at the Dozer's FAQs and docs, including the SourceForge forum, but I didn't see any good tutorial or even a simple example on how to implement a custom BeanFactory.
Everyone says, "Just implement a BeanFactory". How exactly do you implement it?
I've Googled and all I see are just jars and sources of jars.
Here is one of my BeanFactories, I hope it helps to explain the common pattern:
public class LineBeanFactory implements BeanFactory {
#Override
public Object createBean(final Object source, final Class<?> sourceClass, final String targetBeanId) {
final LineDto dto = (LineDto) source;
return new Line(dto.getCode(), dto.getElectrified(), dto.getName());
}
}
And the corresponding XML mapping:
<mapping>
<class-a bean-factory="com.floyd.nav.web.ws.mapping.dozer.LineBeanFactory">com.floyd.nav.core.model.Line</class-a>
<class-b>com.floyd.nav.web.contract.dto.LineDto</class-b>
</mapping>
This way I declare that when a new instance of Line is needed then it should create it with my BeanFactory. Here is a unit test, that can explain it:
#Test
public void Line_is_created_with_three_arg_constructor_from_LineDto() {
final LineDto dto = createTransientLineDto();
final Line line = (Line) this.lineBeanFactory.createBean(dto, LineDto.class, null);
assertEquals(dto.getCode(), line.getCode());
assertEquals(dto.getElectrified(), line.isElectrified());
assertEquals(dto.getName(), line.getName());
}
So Object source is the source bean that is mapped, Class sourceClass is the class of the source bean (I'm ignoring it, 'cause it will always be a LineDto instance). String targetBeanId is the ID of the destination bean (too ignored).
A custom bean factory is a class that has a method that creates a bean. There are two "flavours"
a) static create method
SomeBean x = SomeBeanFactory.createSomeBean();
b) instance create method
SomeBeanFactory sbf = new SomeBeanFactory();
SomeBean x = sbf.createSomeBean();
You would create a bean factory if creating and setting up your bean requires some tricky logic, like for example initial value of certain properties depend on external configuration file. A bean factory class allows you to centralize "knowledge" about how to create such a tricky bean. Other classes just call create method without worying how to correctly create such bean.
Here is an actual implementation. Obviously it does not make a lot of sense, since Dozer would do the same without the BeanFactory, but instead of just returning an object, you could initialized it somehow differently.
public class ComponentBeanFactory implements BeanFactory {
#Override
public Object createBean(Object source, Class<?> sourceClass,
String targetBeanId) {
return new ComponentDto();
}
}
Why do you need a BeanFactory anyways? Maybe that would help understanding your question.