I've registered two messages:
Messenger.Default.Register<NotificationMessage<DriverEventItem>>(this, NotificationMessageReceived);
Messenger.Default.Register<NotificationMessage>(this,NotificationMessageReceived);
and I have two methods to handle this message:
private void NotificationMessageReceived(NotificationMessage<DriverEventItem> msg)
{
//something
}
private void NotificationMessageReceived(NotificationMessage msg)
{
//something
}
but this
var nm=new NotificationMessage(this.SelectedShowroomLog.DriverEventItem,"ShowView2");
Messenger.Default.Send(nm);
invokes me the second handler.
What should I do to correctly send this driveritem to a recipient?
It was simply :)
NotificationMessage(this.SelectedShowroomLog.DriverEventItem,"ShowView2")
Related
I have this flow that I am trying to test but nothing works as expected. The flow itself works well but testing seems a bit tricky.
This is my flow:
#Configuration
#RequiredArgsConstructor
public class FileInboundFlow {
private final ThreadPoolTaskExecutor threadPoolTaskExecutor;
private String filePath;
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow fileReaderFlow() {
return IntegrationFlows.from(Files.inboundAdapter(new File(this.filePath))
.filterFunction(...)
.preventDuplicates(false),
endpointConfigurer -> endpointConfigurer.poller(
Pollers.fixedDelay(500)
.taskExecutor(this.threadPoolTaskExecutor)
.maxMessagesPerPoll(15)))
.transform(new UnZipTransformer())
.enrichHeaders(this::headersEnricher)
.transform(Message.class, this::modifyMessagePayload)
.route(Map.class, this::channelsRouter)
.get();
}
private String channelsRouter(Map<String, File> payload) {
boolean isZip = payload.values()
.stream()
.anyMatch(file -> isZipFile(file));
return isZip ? ZIP_CHANNEL : XML_CHANNEL; // ZIP_CHANNEL and XML_CHANNEL are PublishSubscribeChannel
}
#Bean
public SubscribableChannel xmlChannel() {
var channel = new PublishSubscribeChannel(this.threadPoolTaskExecutor);
channel.setBeanName(XML_CHANNEL);
return channel;
}
#Bean
public SubscribableChannel zipChannel() {
var channel = new PublishSubscribeChannel(this.threadPoolTaskExecutor);
channel.setBeanName(ZIP_CHANNEL);
return channel;
}
//There is a #ServiceActivator on each channel
#ServiceActivator(inputChannel = XML_CHANNEL)
public void handleXml(Message<Map<String, File>> message) {
...
}
#ServiceActivator(inputChannel = ZIP_CHANNEL)
public void handleZip(Message<Map<String, File>> message) {
...
}
//Plus an #Transformer on the XML_CHANNEL
#Transformer(inputChannel = XML_CHANNEL, outputChannel = BUS_CHANNEL)
private List<BusData> xmlFileToIngestionMessagePayload(Map<String, File> xmlFilesByName) {
return xmlFilesByName.values()
.stream()
.map(...)
.collect(Collectors.toList());
}
}
I would like to test multiple cases, the first one is checking the message payload published on each channel after the end of fileReaderFlow.
So I defined this test classe:
#SpringBootTest
#SpringIntegrationTest
#ExtendWith(SpringExtension.class)
class FileInboundFlowTest {
#Autowired
private MockIntegrationContext mockIntegrationContext;
#TempDir
static Path localWorkDir;
#BeforeEach
void setUp() {
copyFileToTheFlowDir(); // here I copy a file to trigger the flow
}
#Test
void checkXmlChannelPayloadTest() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(1000); //waiting for the flow execution
PublishSubscribeChannel xmlChannel = this.getBean(XML_CHANNEL, PublishSubscribeChannel.class); // I extract the channel to listen to the message sent to it.
xmlChannel.subscribe(message -> {
assertThat(message.getPayload()).isInstanceOf(Map.class); // This is never executed
});
}
}
As expected that test does not work because the assertThat(message.getPayload()).isInstanceOf(Map.class); is never executed.
After reading the documentation I didn't find any hint to help me solved that issue. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks a lot
First of all that channel.setBeanName(XML_CHANNEL); does not effect the target bean. You do this on the bean creation phase and dependency injection container knows nothing about this setting: it just does not consult with it. If you really would like to dictate an XML_CHANNEL for bean name, you'd better look into the #Bean(name) attribute.
The problem in the test that you are missing the fact of async logic of the flow. That Files.inboundAdapter() works if fully different thread and emits messages outside of your test method. So, even if you could subscribe to the channel in time, before any message is emitted to it, that doesn't mean your test will work correctly: the assertThat() will be performed on a different thread. Therefore no real JUnit report for your test method context.
So, what I'd suggest to do is:
Have Files.inboundAdapter() stopped in the beginning of the test before any setup you'd like to do in the test. Or at least don't place files into that filePath, so the channel adapter doesn't emit messages.
Take the channel from the application context and if you wish subscribe or use a ChannelInterceptor.
Have an async barrier, e.g. CountDownLatch to pass to that subscriber.
Start the channel adapter or put file into the dir for scanning.
Wait for the async barrier before verifying some value or state.
I'm implementing a custom Authentication Handler for wso2-am following this guide https://docs.wso2.com/display/AM190/Writing+Custom+Handlers
But it's not clear how to handle the case when my authentication handler returns false. The sample code of the handleRequest is
public boolean handleRequest(MessageContext messageContext) {
try {
if (authenticate(messageContext)) {
return true;
}
} catch (APISecurityException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return false;
}
If I try calling an API with valid credentials everything goes well (the method returns true) and I get an "HTTP 200 OK" response. If I try with invalid credentials the method returns false but I get an HTTP 202 ACCEPTED" response. I would like to receive another response code (for example 400). How do I handle this authentication failure path?
Thank you.
Ideally you need to call handleAuthFaliure method with message context.
private void handleAuthFailure(MessageContext messageContext, APISecurityException e)
When you call that method please create APISecurityException object(as listed below) and pass it. Then error code and error messages will be picked from there and automatically send error to client(by default we return 401 for security exceptions and if defined then send defined error code and message).
public class APISecurityException extends Exception {
private int errorCode;
public APISecurityException(int errorCode, String message) {
super(message);
this.errorCode = errorCode;
}
public APISecurityException(int errorCode, String message, Throwable cause) {
super(message, cause);
this.errorCode = errorCode;
}
public int getErrorCode() {
return errorCode;
}
}
Hope this will work for you.
Thanks
sanjeewa.
I'm converting a Windows Phone 7 app to Windows Store, so I'm moving over to Xaml. I have a method that runs at a certain point to update the data on the screen. It either assigns or removes an event handler delegate to the CompositionTarget.Rendering event. The message I get is No overload for 'OnCompositionTargetRendering' matches delegate 'System.EventHandler' '
Here's what I have:
private void CheckCompleted()
{
Color completeColor;
if (this.DecryptedText.ToString().ToUpper() == this.ThisPuzzle.QuoteText.ToUpper())
{
// We're done!!! ...
CompositionTarget.Rendering -= this.OnCompositionTargetRendering;// new EventHandler(this.OnCompositionTargetRendering);
...
}
else
{
...
CompositionTarget.Rendering += this.OnCompositionTargetRendering;// new EventHandler(this.OnCompositionTargetRendering);
...
}
}
protected void OnCompositionTargetRendering(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
this.DisplayTime();
if (ThisPuzzle != null)
{
foreach (UIElement thisElement in Letters.Children)
{
...
}
}
}
If you check the documentation CompositionTarget.Rendering is of type EventHandler<object> in Windows Store apps and not of type EventHandler as in Silverlight.
This means you need to change the signature of your event handler accordingly to:
protected void OnCompositionTargetRendering(object sender, object args)
I need to register different share charm listener for every page. I have 2 pages. I added following code in every one:
DataTransferManager.GetForCurrentView().DataRequested += App_DataRequested;
I added it in constructor of one page and in UserControl_Loaded event of another (first page just doesn't have UserControl_Loaded so why I added it directly to constructor). At the moment when second page tryting to load, I got exception:
WinRT information: An event handler has already been registered
Additional information: A method was called at an unexpected time.
Where should I place it and what is "right" time to do this??
Also it looks confusing that we have different DataTransferManager for every view, but only one is active at current time. Ever more, I noticed, if you add only one listener for first page, other pages will share this listener anyway. If I have only one shared listener for all pages, is it correct register it in app.xaml.cs?
The way I resolved this issue was to deregister the event in the onNavigatedfrom event as below:
protected override void OnNavigatedFrom(NavigationEventArgs e)
{
DataTransferManager.GetForCurrentView().DataRequested -= App_DataRequested;
base.OnNavigatedFrom(e);
}
In BasePage.cs in constructor I added
public BasePage()
{
if (!_isListenToDataRequested)
{
_isListenToDataRequested = true;
DataTransferManager manager = DataTransferManager.GetForCurrentView();
manager.DataRequested += AppDataRequested;
}
}
private async void AppDataRequested(DataTransferManager sender, DataRequestedEventArgs args)
{
IShareable shareable = Frame.Content as IShareable;
if (shareable != null)
{
DataRequestDeferral deferral = args.Request.GetDeferral();
await Dispatcher.RunAsync(CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal, () => shareable.AppDataRequested(sender, args));
deferral.Complete();
}
}
And all my pages look like
public sealed partial class ContentPage : IShareable
{
public void AppDataRequested(DataTransferManager sender, DataRequestedEventArgs args)
{...}
}
Another solution was run this as below
private DataTransferManager dataTransferManager;
Put this in page loaded event
this.Dispatcher.RunAsync(Windows.UI.Core.CoreDispatcherPriority.Normal, new DispatchedHandler(() =>
{
this.dataTransferManager = DataTransferManager.GetForCurrentView();
this.dataTransferManager.DataRequested += new TypedEventHandler<DataTransferManager, DataRequestedEventArgs>(this.OnDataRequested);
}));
And
protected override void OnNavigatedFrom(NavigationEventArgs e)
{
// Unregister the current page as a share source.
this.dataTransferManager.DataRequested -=
new TypedEventHandler<DataTransferManager, DataRequestedEventArgs>
(this.OnDataRequested);
}
I'd suggest doing it in the navigating events, the OnNavigatingFrom event will be triggered before the OnNavigatingTo of the page you're going to so you won't have this problem.
protected override Task OnNavigatingTo(WinRTXamlToolkit.Controls.AlternativeNavigationEventArgs e)
{
DataTransferManager.GetForCurrentView().DataRequested += dataTransfer_DataRequested;
return base.OnNavigatingTo(e);
}
protected override Task OnNavigatingFrom(WinRTXamlToolkit.Controls.AlternativeNavigatingCancelEventArgs e)
{
DataTransferManager.GetForCurrentView().DataRequested -= dataTransfer_DataRequested;
return base.OnNavigatingFrom(e);
}
//Note: This is the WinRT Xaml Toolkit version of the events, but the standard events will work the same way.
I am running into issues when trying to convert all my normal WCF calls to async WCF calls. I'm finding I have a refactor a lot of code and not sure exactly how to do it. I have used the method that I found here but running into issues where I need things to happen in order.
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<Item> itemList = GetList();
foreach(Item i in itemList)
{
DoSomeWork(i);
if(i.SomeID == 0)
{
DoSomeMoreWork(i);
}
UpdateRecord(i) // this can't execute until the above code is complete
}
}
private void DoSomeWork(Item i)
{
// call async method
}
private void DoSomeMoreWork(i)
{
// call async method
}
private void UpdateRecord(item i)
{
// call async method
}
What is the best way to refactor code to work in an asyncronous way, or do I need to completely rethink my logic? Do I really have to insert counters and switches everywhere to make sure certain things are done before other things execute?
EDIT: The reason I'm doing this is in the next couple months, we are converting this WPF application to Silverlight, which requires async calls. So I'm trying to convert our regular WCF calls to async in preparation. I'm finding it requires a different way of thinking.
For what you're doing, I'd say the real place to handle things is to make a single call to the service per item, not 3.
Preferably, if the list of items is not huge, make a single call to the service with the whole list...
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<Item> itemList = GetList();
foreach(Item i in itemList)
{
DoAllTheWorkAndUpdate(i);
}
}
or...
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<Item> itemList = GetList();
foreach(Item i in itemList)
{
if(i.Id == 0)
{
DoLotsOfWorkAndUpdate(i);
}
else
{
DoSomeWorkAndUpdate(i);
}
}
}
or...
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<Item> itemList = GetList();
DoTheWorkOnTheWholeList(itemList);
}
In other words, it feels like some of your responsibilities may be misplaced - I generally prefer to make services where I can make a single call to them. Then, the asynchronous nature is irrelevant, because you're not performing a sequence of events.
Take a look at Juval Lowy's (author of Programming WCF Services) website for examples of how to achieve asynchronous programming in WCF. The downloads are free; you just have to provide your email address.
I am perhaps a bit puzzled as to why you need to use asynchronous WCF operations when you need things to be synchronous inside the loop.
If you are just using the async methods to help keep the UI from hanging, then you could just use a BackgroundWorker that supports progress updates to keep the UI up to date, and not use Async WCF calls.
You should also be able to call your various functions from the Completed events for the Async methods.
Just hook up event handlers to the completed events and then pass your Item object as the userState parameter when you start the async WCF call. This way you will have it as a parameter when each of the Completed events fires. That way you will only be doing the next step in your processing as the previous async call completes.
I don't know if this really is answering your question though.
Try using this
http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2008/03/29/WCF-Async-without-proxies.aspx
the approach that definitely works.
If you're not using Silverlight, you can block your thread in one method until the other methods complete, using, say, a ManualResetEvent. But that won't work in Silverlight, since all WCF calls happen on the main UI thread, so if you block that thread, everything blocks. A better approach is to do something like this, using callbacks:
public delegate void OperationCallback();
private void btnSave_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
List<Item> itemList = GetList();
foreach (Item i in itemList)
{
DoSomeWork(i, () =>
{
if (i.SomeID == 0)
{
DoSomeMoreWork(i, () =>
{
UpdateRecord(i);
});
}
else
{
UpdateRecord(i);
}
});
}
}
private void DoSomeWork(Item i, OperationCallback callback)
{
// call async method then callback when it completes.
callback();
}
private void DoSomeMoreWork(Item i, OperationCallback callback)
{
// call async method, then callback when it completes.
callback();
}
private void UpdateRecord(Item i)
{
// call async method
}
It's certainly not as clear as the synchronous version, but if you use lambda expressions as much as possible, it's still possible to keep the control flow fairly readable.
Add 2 properties to Item called SomeWorkDone and SomeMoreWorkDone both as booleans. Create methods to handle both DoSomeWorkCompleted and DoSomeMoreWorkCompleted. In those methods, set the respective boolean properties to true and call UpdateRecord. Within UpdateRecord, ensure that both Done properties are true and then complete the calls.
You'll have some possible contention issues but this should get you going.