I have written a WCF service with the REST template that has the defaultOutgoingResponseFormat set to Json. Under that, I have built a simple entity model using Entity Framework and ObjectContext, in order to pass around custom POCO entities.
If I pass a single entity, the system works as expected. If I add children to the entity, the REST response is blank. In the debugger, the entity is populated correctly, but the service itself returns nothing at all.
So, for instance, I have a Trip.Get() method. The WCF code looks like this:
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "{id}", ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json)]
public Model.Trip Get(string id)
{
Model.Trip fetchedTrip = null;
try
{
fetchedTrip = Library.Trip.Get(new Guid(id));
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Debug.Write(ex.Message);
}
return fetchedTrip;
}
Library.Trip.Get looks like this in the working version:
public static Model.Trip Get(Guid tripId)
{
using (Model.POCOTripContext context = new Model.POCOTripContext())
{
var tripEntity = context.Trips.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Id == tripId) ?? new Model.Trip();
return tripEntity;
}
}
This returns the expected result, which looks like this:
{"ArrivalDate":"/Date(1334203200000-0400)/","DepartureDate":"/Date(1334721600000-0400)/","Id":"d6413d96-fe1f-4b1c-ae7a-3bbf516cdc2f","Name":"Test 123","Photos":null,"PlacesOfInterest":null,"WhereTo":"Orlando, FL"}
If I change the Library method to add in the children, however, the REST service returns a blank value. Nothing, nada.
public static Model.Trip Get(Guid tripId)
{
using (Model.POCOTripContext context = new Model.POCOTripContext())
{
var tripEntity = context.Trips.Include("PlacesOfInterest").Include("Photos").Include("PlacesOfInterest.PoiAttributes").FirstOrDefault(c => c.Id == tripId) ?? new Model.Trip();
return tripEntity;
}
}
The debugger, in the WCF service on the return statement, shows that the entity is fully and correctly populated.
I am certain that I am just missing some magic attribute, and am hoping that someone who has dome this before might be able to help me out!
According to your small test with removing back tracking navigation property you have problem with serialization to JSON. Default serialization is not able to track object references so when it starts serializing your Trip it follows navigation property to points of interest and in first of them it finds reference to Trip. Because it doesn't track references it follows the navigation property and serializes trip again (and again follows his navigation properties) => infinite loop.
You must either remove your back tracking navigation property as you did in test or you must tell serializer either to track references or to exclude that property from serialization (well I'm not sure what the first option will do in case of JSON). I guess you are using default WCF serialization so either:
Mark each entity with [DateContract(IsReference = true)] and each serialized property with [DataMember] attributes to start tracking references.
Or mark back tracking navigation property with [IgnoreDataMember] attribute to exclude the property from serialization
Related
I don't quite fully understand this situation, where AsyncLocal instance is set at a certain point in the AuthenticationHandler, but does not reach the controller, when it is injected into the constructor.
I've made it similar to how IHttpContextAccessor works, but still nowhere near. However, if I set the AsyncLocal from a Middleware, it reaches the controller. Also, setting the HttpContext.Items property from AuthenticationHandler works just fine.
Question: How is HttpContext able to retain Items property contents all the way, and is ASP.NET runtime disposing the captured ExecutionContext of my DomainContextAccessor for some security reason because of where it is being set at?
I've made a sample app to demo this use case. I'd really appreciate someone shedding the light on this problem.
You already have a good answer on "how should I fix this?" Here's more of a description of why it's behaving this way.
AsyncLocal<T> has the same semantics as logging scopes. Because it has those same semantics, I always prefer to use it with an IDisposable, so that the scope is clear and explicit, and there's no weird rules around whether a method is marked async or not.
For specifics on the weird rules, see this. In summary:
Writing a new value to an AsyncLocal<T> sets that value in the current scope.
Methods marked async will copy their scope to a new scope the first time it's written to (and it's the new scope that is modified).
I've made it similar to how IHttpContextAccessor works, but still nowhere near.
I don't recommend copying the design of IHttpContextAccessor. It works... for that very specific use case. If you want to use AsyncLocal<T>, then use a design like this:
static class MyImplicitValue
{
private static readonly AsyncLocal<T> Value = new();
public static T Get() => Value.Value;
public static IDisposable Set(T newValue)
{
var oldValue = Value.Value;
Value.Value = newValue;
return new Disposable(() => Value.Value = oldValue);
}
}
usage:
using (MyImplicitValue.Set(myValue))
{
// Code in here can get myValue from MyImplicitValue.Get().
}
You can wrap that into an IMyImplicitValueAccessor if desired, but note that any "setter" logic should be using the IDisposable pattern as shown.
AsyncLocal instance is set at a certain point in the AuthenticationHandler, but does not reach the controller
That's because your AuthenticationHandler sets the value but doesn't call the controller after setting that value (and it shouldn't).
However, if I set the AsyncLocal from a Middleware, it reaches the controller.
That's because middleware is calls the next middleware (eventually getting to the controller). I.e., middleware is structured like this:
public async Task InvokeAsync(HttpContext context)
{
using (implicitValue.Set(myValue))
{
await _next(context);
}
}
So the controllers are in the scope of when that AsyncLocal<T> value was set.
How is HttpContext able to retain Items property contents all the way
Items is just a property bag. It doesn't have anything to do with AsyncLocal<T>. It exists because it's a property on HttpContext, and it persists because the same HttpContext instance is used throughout the request.
is ASP.NET runtime disposing the captured ExecutionContext of my DomainContextAccessor for some security reason because of where it is being set at?
Not exactly. The AsyncLocal<T> is being set just fine; it's just that the controllers are not called within the scope of that AsyncLocal<T> being set.
So what must be happening is there is a execution context change which wipes that value out. It works with in the middleware because your controller is in the same execution context as your middleware.
Change your code to this:
private static void DomainContextChangeHandler(AsyncLocalValueChangedArgs<DomainContextHolder> args)
{
Trace.WriteLine($"ThreadContextChanged: {args.ThreadContextChanged}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Current: {args.CurrentValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Previous: {args.PreviousValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Thread Id: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
Now you can see when the context changes.
Here is something you could do:
private static void DomainContextChangeHandler(AsyncLocalValueChangedArgs<DomainContextHolder> args)
{
if (args.ThreadContextChanged && (args.PreviousValue != null) && (args.CurrentValue == null))
{
Trace.WriteLine(
"***** Detected context change with a previous value but setting current " +
"value to null. Resetting value to previous.");
_domainContextCurrent.Value = args.PreviousValue;
return;
}
Trace.WriteLine($"ThreadContextChanged: {args.ThreadContextChanged}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Current: {args.CurrentValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Previous: {args.PreviousValue?.GetHashCode()}");
Trace.WriteLine($"Thread Id: {Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}");
}
But, that kinda defeats the purpose of using AsyncLocal as your backing store.
My suggestion is you drop the AsyncLocal and use normal class-scoped storage:
namespace WebApp.Models
{
public interface IDomainContextAccessor
{
DomainContext DomainContext { get; set; }
}
public sealed class DomainContextAccessor : IDomainContextAccessor
{
public DomainContext DomainContext { get; set; }
}
}
And inject it as scoped instead of singleton:
services.AddScoped<IDomainContextAccessor, DomainContextAccessor>();
It will do exactly what you want without any kludges -- AND, the future you (or devs) will absolutely understand what's going on and why it is the way it is.
No middleware, no AsyncLocal funny-business. It just works.
Your answer is here:
.net core AsyncLocal loses its value
In your DomainContextAccessor class when you set new value in this line: _domainContextCurrent.Value = new DomainContextHolder { Context = value };
you create NEW ExecutionContext in current thread and child threads.
So I suppose that mvc runs like this:
Middleware thread => you set value => some child thread with Controller execution which sees parent changes
But for UserAuthenticationHandler it feels it works like this:
Some controller factory creates controller with injected IDomainContextAccessor (1 context) => mvc executes auth handler in child task where you set value and create 2 context. But it's value does not go UP to parent (where controller 1 context exists) because you create new context when you set value. Even more your code gets parents context, gets reference to its value and makes property Context = null, so you will get null in Controller.
So to fix this you need to change your code:
public class DomainContext
{
private static AsyncLocal<DomainContext> _contextHolder = new AsyncLocal<DomainContext>();
public static DomainContext Current
{
get
{
return _contextHolder.Value;
}
}
public Job JobInfo { get; set; }
public static void InitContext()
{
_contextHolder.Value = new DomainContext();
}
}
//using in middleware:
DomainContext.InitContext();
//using in auth handler:
DomainContext.Current.JobInfo = ...
In example above you don't change DomainContext reference in _contextHolder.Value;
It remains the same but you only change value of JobInfo in it later in auth handler
ASP.NET Core 2 Web application using a REST API. Currently using sqlite3 for development database. (Also tried migrating to SQL Server and got same results as below).
I'm sending an entity to web client, the client makes changes to the entity that involve adding a new related entity and then that updated principle entity gets sent back as json in body of PUT a request.
I was hoping the new related entity would get created automatically, but this is not happening. The simple properties on the principle entity are updated properly, but not reference properties. I'm not getting any exceptions or anything - it just seems to be ignoring the reference properties.
Simplified Classes (I removed other properties that shouldn't affect the relationship):
public partial class DashboardItem {
public int Id { get; set; }
public int? DataObjectId { get; set; }
public DataObject DataObject { get; set; }
}
public partial class DataObject {
public int Id { get; set; }
}
Portion of DbContext Fluent API for associated property:
modelBuilder.Entity<DashboardItem>(entity => {
entity.HasOne(p => p.DataObject)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(p => p.DataObjectId);
});
Controller Method for PUT:
[HttpPut("{id}")]
public async Task<IActionResult> PutDashboardItem([FromRoute] int id, [FromBody] DashboardItem entity)
{
if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
return BadRequest(ModelState);
}
if (id != entity.Id)
{
return BadRequest();
}
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
try{
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
}catch (DbUpdateConcurrencyException)
{
if (!DashboardItemExists(id)){
return NotFound();
}else {
throw;
}
}
return NoContent();
}
The simplified json (without all the other properties) would look like this (I've tried different variations of have the foreign key "DataObjectId" removed from the json, set to null, or set to zero in case that might be interferring.):
{
Id:1,
DataObjectId:null,
DataObject:{
Id: 0
}
}
When debugging in the controller action method, the existing "DashboardItem" principle entity created from the request body has the reference property "DataObject" populated before getting added to the DbContext, but the new DataObject never gets created in the database. There is only a SQL UPDATE statement issued for DashboardItem and no INSERT for DataObject.
I've also tried making the controller method synchronous instead of async, using DbContext.SaveChanges() instead of .SaveChangesAsync(), since there used to be a problem with that in earlier versions of EF Core related to creating related entities, even though I'm using 2.0 which already has a fix for that. Same result.
This EFCore Doc sounds like it should just work out of the box.
This has worked for me in a prior project. What am I missing here?
Basically, my mistake was in assuming the process of updating data was much simpler than it actually is when sending the updated data from a client in a web application.
After digging a lot more, it seems that the following line in my controller method for handling the PUT request is the problem:
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
Setting the entity entry state to Modified in this way results in Entity Framework Core ignoring the reference properties for the related objects - the SQL UPDATE generated will only address the columns in the entity table.
This simple summary eventually got me started down the right path.
Summarizing what I've now learned:
This controller method is dealing with a 'detached' entity that was edited and sent back from the client. The DbContext is not yet tracking this entity since I get a new instance of the context with each http request (hence the entity is considered 'detached'). Because it is not being tracked yet, when it is added to the DbContext, the context needs to be told whether this entity has been changed and how to treat it.
There are several ways to tell the DbContext how to handle the detached entity. Among those:
(1) setting the entity state to EntityState.Modified will result in ALL properties being included in the SQL update (whether they've actually changed or not), EXCEPT for the reference properties for related entities:
_context.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Modified;
(2) adding the entity with a call to DbContext.Update will do the same as above, but will include the reference properties, also include ALL properties on those entities in the update, whether they've changed or not:
_context.Update(entity)
Approach #2 got things working for me, where I was just trying to get the new related child entity to be created in the Update to its parent.
Beyond that, DbContext.Attach() and DbContext.TrackGraph sound like thy provide more find-grained control over specifying what specific properties or related entities to include in the update.
Looking for some guidance in designing my new MVC 4 app.
I would like to have a url parameter s=2011 on every page of the app to let me know what year of data I'm working with. Obviously, the user will have a way to change that parameter as needed.
I will need that parameter in every controller and wondering the best way to do this. I was thinking of creating a base controller that reads Request.QueryString and puts the year into a public property. However, considering all the extensability points in MVC, I'm wondering if there's a better way to do this?
This very much depends on the design of your app, but just to give you two alternatives
IActionFilter
If you are doing data context per request you can use a global IActionFilter to hook pre-action execution globally and apply a query filter to your data context behind the scenes.
Major down-side of this is that to test the controller you will need to have the full MVC pipeline setup so that the actionfilter gets applied properly.
Dependency Injection
Instead of using sub-classing (base controller as you say) you can use dependency injection . Keeping things more loose will allow you to pull the filter from query string, cookie, user setting in the database or whatever else - without your controller knowing where it comes from.
Here is some pseudo code how I would do it if I was using something like Entity Framework or Nhibernate (also I am sure applicable with other technologies as well)
public Car
{
public string Year { get; set; }
}
public class CarsDataContext : DbContext
{
private IQuerable<Cars> _cars = null;
private Func<Car, bool> _carsFilter = null;
public IQuerable<Car> Cars {
get {
if (_carsFitler != null)
return _cars.Where(_carsFitler);
return _cars;
}
set { _cars = value; }
}
public void ApplyCarsFilter(Func<Car, bool> predicate)
{
_carsFilter = predicate;
}
}
Assuming you have dependency injection setup already (NInject or whichever other framework) in you can configure how the context to be intialized
Bind<CarsDataContext>().ToMethod(() => {
string yearFilter = GetYearFilter(); // can be coming from anywhere
CarsDataContext dataContext = new CarsDataContext();
dataContext.Applyfilter(car => car.Year == yearFilter);
return dataContext;
}).InRequestScope();
Then my controller knows nothing about the data filtering and I can easily test it:
class MyController : Controller
{
public MyController(CarsDataContext dataContext)
{
}
...
}
However I would only do this is filtering the dataset was across many controllers and important part of my software. Otherwise it's pure over-engineering.
I need to pass a Context object from EF into a WCF method.
Normally, I create the Context object in the WCF method and dispose of it right before the end of the method call which works just fine for most of my methods.
However, I need to pass the Context object (specifically the DBContext) over from the MVC controller to my specific WCF method because I have caching enabled for some lookup tables. I need this specific Context object passed over (the one I set in the Application_Start method of the Global.asax file) rather than what I do in the sentence above because I use this specific object for the SqlDependency. If I try and create the DBContext object brand new, I can't use the SqlDependency becuase I will get an error informing me that the SqlDependency needs to be enabled before the database call.
The problem is that I'm getting the following error (shortened for brevity) when I try and start my WCF Test Client tool which I know has something to do with not properly declaring a KnownType attribute (ie the DBContext object). Note that the WCF project compiles just fine. I need some help with this specific part since I have never used a KnownType in my WCF service. They have all been simple types (int, string, etc).
Error: Cannot obtain Metadata from http://localhost:8732/Design_Time_Addresses/YeagerTechWcfService/YeagerTechWcfService/mex
If this is a Windows (R) Communication Foundation service to which you
have access, please check that you have enabled metadata publishing at
the specified address. For help enabling metadata publishing, please
refer to the MSDN documentation at
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=65455.WS-Metadata Exchange
Error URI:
http://localhost:8732/Design_Time_Addresses/YeagerTechWcfService/YeagerTechWcfService/mex
Metadata contains a reference that cannot be resolved:
I have the following OperationContract code in my WCF service:
[OperationContract]
IEnumerable<Category> GetCategories(YeagerTechEntities DbContext);
I have the following DataContract code in my WCF service:
namespace YeagerTechModel
{
[Serializable]
[DataContract(IsReference = true)]
[KnownType(typeof(YeagerTechEntities))]
public partial class Category
{
public Category()
{
this.Projects = new HashSet<Project>();
}
[DataMember]
public short CategoryID { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public string Description { get; set; }
[DataMember]
public virtual ICollection<Project> Projects { get; set; }
}
}
Finally, the following is my WCF method:
public IEnumerable<YeagerTechModel.Category> GetCategories(YeagerTechEntities DbContext)
{
//YeagerTechEntities DbContext = new YeagerTechEntities();
DbContext.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
IEnumerable<YeagerTechModel.Category> category = DbContext.Categories.Where(p => p.CategoryID > 0).AsCached("Categories").ToList();
//IEnumerable<YeagerTechModel.Category> category = DbContext.Categories.Where(p => p.CategoryID > 0);
CloseConnection(DbContext);
return category;
}
You need singleton object following registry / service locator pattern. This object will hold reference to your global objects. For example at application start you will fill this object with your context using SqlDependency and you will use the registry to access this context in your controller's actions and service's operations.
Anyway work with this very carefully. SqlDependency and EF doesn't play nice together because it will make your context long living. Long living context is in most cases anti-pattern. Never ever use that context for anything else then loading cached data. Don't use it for data modification or loading non cached relations! Load entities as non-tracked (AsNoTracking extension method on query) in the first query and turn off proxy creation and lazy loading for that context.
Also be aware that query in EF is always executed in the database. I'm not sure what your AsCached is supposed to do but I somehow doubt it will work. What you need is probably:
var category = DbContext.Categories.Local
.Where(p => p.CategoryID > 0)
.ToList();
I would not use SqlDependency with EF. I would use ADO.NET and SQL directly. For caching in EF I would check EF Caching provider to use second level cache which is in most cases enough.
I'm trying to expose a simple WCF REST service using data from Linq to SQL.
The problem is when I have child objects (like a User object which has UserAction objects as children) - I get an empty result from the service. As it seems - the service it self is working and the data is being fetched from Linq as needed, but at the client side - no data is being shown.
If I delete all the child objects, it works just fine.
Any Ideas why this happens and how to fix?
EDIT: added the webservice code for that part
[WebGet(UriTemplate = "TopUpdaters/{topx}",
ResponseFormat = System.ServiceModel.Web.WebMessageFormat.Json)]
public List<User> TopUpdaters(string topx)
{
FulltankRepository rep = new FulltankRepository();
var topusers = rep.GetTopUpdaters(int.Parse(topx));
return topusers;
}
Thanks!
If you've confirmed that the children exist in memory on the server, then it sounds like a serialization issue. Check that your UserAction property on User is marked for serialization
[DataMember]
public List<UserAction> UserActionChild
{
get;
set;
}