Avoiding Service Locator with AutoFac 2 - ioc-container

I'm building an application which uses AutoFac 2 for DI. I've been reading that using a static IoCHelper (Service Locator) should be avoided.
IoCHelper.cs
public static class IoCHelper
{
private static AutofacDependencyResolver _resolver;
public static void InitializeWith(AutofacDependencyResolver resolver)
{
_resolver = resolver;
}
public static T Resolve<T>()
{
return _resolver.Resolve<T>();
}
}
From answers to a previous question, I found a way to help reduce the need for using my IoCHelper in my UnitOfWork through the use of Auto-generated Factories. Continuing down this path, I'm curious if I can completely eliminate my IoCHelper.
Here is the scenario:
I have a static Settings class that serves as a wrapper around my configuration implementation. Since the Settings class is a dependency to a majority of my other classes, the wrapper keeps me from having to inject the settings class all over my application.
Settings.cs
public static class Settings
{
public static IAppSettings AppSettings
{
get
{
return IoCHelper.Resolve<IAppSettings>();
}
}
}
public interface IAppSettings
{
string Setting1 { get; }
string Setting2 { get; }
}
public class AppSettings : IAppSettings
{
public string Setting1
{
get
{
return GetSettings().AppSettings["setting1"];
}
}
public string Setting2
{
get
{
return GetSettings().AppSettings["setting2"];
}
}
protected static IConfigurationSettings GetSettings()
{
return IoCHelper.Resolve<IConfigurationSettings>();
}
}
Is there a way to handle this without using a service locator and without having to resort to injecting AppSettings into each and every class? Listed below are the 3 areas in which I keep leaning on ServiceLocator instead of constructor injection:
AppSettings
Logging
Caching

I would rather inject IAppSettings into every class that needs it just to keep them clean from the hidden dependency on Settings. Question is, do you really need to sprinkle that dependency into each and every class?
If you really want to go with a static Settings class I would at least try to make it test-friendly/fakeable. Consider this:
public static class Settings
{
public static Func<IAppSettings> AppSettings { get; set; }
}
And where you build your container:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
...
var container = builder.Build();
Settings.AppSettings = () => container.Resolve<IAppSettings>();
This would allow to swap out with fakes during test:
Settings.AppSettings = () => new Mock<IAppSettings>().Object;
Now the AppSettings class (which I assume there is only one of) you could do with regular constructor injection. I assume also that you really want to do a resolve on each call to your settings properties, thus injecting a factory delegate that retrieves an instance when needed. If this is not needed you should of course inject the IConfigurationSettings service directly.
public class AppSettings : IAppSettings
{
private readonly Func<IConfigurationSettings> _configurationSettings;
public AppSettings(Func<IConfigurationSettings> configurationSettings)
{
_configurationSettings = configurationSettings;
}
public string Setting1
{
get
{
return _configurationSettings().AppSettings["setting1"];
}
}
public string Setting2
{
get
{
return _configurationSettings().AppSettings["setting2"];
}
}
}

Related

Dependency injection in Hotchocolate GraphQL, ASP.NET Core

Is it possible to do something like this?
Query.cs
class Query<T> : ObjectType<MyQuery<T>> where T : class
{
protected override void configure(IObjectTypeDescriptor<MyQuery<T>> descriptor)
{
descriptor
.Field(f => f.GetItems)
.Description("Return List");
}
}
public partial class MyQuery<T> where T : class
{
private readonly IGenericRepositorty _repo
public MyQuery(IGenericRepositorty repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
public IEnumerable<T> GetItems()
{
return _repo.GetAll(); // GetAll in generic repo
}
}
Now if I am adding my service in Startup.cs as
services.AddQueryType<MyQuery<Entity>>();
It works.
But I want to add it as
services.AddQueryType<MyQuery<>>(); or kind of services.AddQueryType(typeOf(MyQuery<>));
The way we inject generic repo like this
services.AddScoped(typef(IGenericRepository<>),typeofGenericRepository<>)
So, here at run time it creates an instance.
The same way for query at run time I am trying whether it will be possible to create instance

How to write Xunit test case of factory design pattern code block which is tightly coupled?

I would like to write xunit test case of below method. Could you please suggest alternate design so i can write xunit test case with minimum change in my current project.
public ActionResult Index(int id = 0, AssetFilterType filter = AssetFilterType.All)
{
using (var tracer = new Tracer("AssetController", "Index"))
{
RemoveReturnUrl();
ViewBag.JobId = id;
var response = ContextFactory.Current.GetDomain<EmployeeDomain>().GetEmployeeFilterAsync(id,
CurrentUser.CompanyId, filter); // Not able write unit test case , please suggest alternate design.
return View("View", response);
}
}
current design is as follow
public interface IDomain
{
}
public interface IContext
{
D GetDomain<D>() where D : IDomain;
string ConnectionString { get; }
}
public class ApplicationContext : IContext
{
public D GetDomain<D>() where D : IDomain
{
return (D)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(D));
}
public string ConnectionString
{
get
{
return "DatabaseConnection";
}
}
}
public class ContextFactory
{
private static IContext _context;
public static IContext Current
{
get
{
return _context;
}
}
public static void Register(IContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
}
//var response = ContextFactory.Current.GetDomain**< EmployeeDomain>**().GetEmployeeFilterAsync(id,
CompanyId, filter);
This line serve purpose to call specific class method i.e GetEmployeeFilterAsync from EmployeeDomain. Although it is very handy and widely used in our application but due to design issue i am not able to write unit
test case.
Could you please suggest design so with the minimum change we can write unit test case.
Don't use the Service Locator anti-pattern, use Constructor Injection instead. I can't tell what AssetDomain is from the OP, but it seems as though it's the dependency that matters. Inject it into the class:
public class ProbablySomeController
{
public ProbablySomeController(AssetDomain assetDomain)
{
AssetDomain = assetDomain;
}
public AssetDomain AssetDomain { get; }
public ActionResult Index(int id = 0, AssetFilterType filter = AssetFilterType.All)
{
using (var tracer = new Tracer("AssetController", "Index"))
{
RemoveReturnUrl();
ViewBag.JobId = id;
var response = AssetDomain.GetAssetFilterAsync(id, CurrentUser.CompanyId, filter);
return View("View", response);
}
}
}
Assuming that AssetDomain is a polymorphic type, you can now write a test and inject a Test Double:
[Fact]
public void MyTest()
{
var testDouble = new AssetDomainTestDouble();
var sut = new ProbablySomeController(testDouble);
var actual = sut.Index(42, AssetFilterType.All);
// Put assertions here
}
step1 : Required library
step 2 : When the application starts , register required domain like
protected void Application_Start()
UnityConfig.RegisterComponents();
Step 3: create one static class and register all your domain
example
public static class UnityConfig
{
public static void RegisterComponents()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
Initialize domain which will injected in controller
container.RegisterType<IPricingDomain, PricingDomain>();
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.DependencyResolver = new UnityDependencyResolver(container);
}
}
step 4 :
so you can inject respective interface in constructor
in controller file.
goal : get rid of below any pattern in your project.
and start writing unit test cases.

Define class dynamically with Service Locator - Asp.Net Core

I am working with Asp.Net Core application. I have two classes namely Online and Offline. I have created interface and defined the methods in these two classes. Based on the need I have to connect to anyone of these two classes.
Previously when I worked in Asp.Net MVC, I have used unity container and Service Locator to specify the class name in XML file for invoking the class dynamically (between online and offline).
Now I want to implement the same with Asp.Net core. But I am not sure how to specify the class name outside for method invocation. Kindly help.
Thanks
In .net core dependency injection is in built. You don't need unity or any other any more.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/dependency-injection?view=aspnetcore-5.0
You can achieve what you want by using a little tweak.
//// classes
public interface IFileUploadContentProcess
{
IEnumerable<StoreOrder> ProcessUploads(IFormFile file);
}
public class ProcessExcelFiles : IFileUploadContentProcess
{
public IEnumerable<StoreOrder> ProcessUploads(IFormFile file)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
public class ProcessCsvFiles : IFileUploadContentProcess
{
public IEnumerable<StoreOrder> ProcessUploads(IFormFile file)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
//// register it
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddControllers();
services.AddTransient<IStoreOrderService, StoreOrderService>();
services.AddTransient<ProcessExcelFiles>();
services.AddTransient<ProcessCsvFiles>();
// Add resolvers for different sources here
services.AddTransient<Func<string, IFileUploadContentProcess>>(serviceProvider => key =>
{
return key switch
{
"xlsx" => serviceProvider.GetService<ProcessExcelFiles>(),
_ => serviceProvider.GetService<ProcessCsvFiles>(),
};
});
}
//use it
public class StoreOrderService : IStoreOrderService
{
private readonly Func<string, IFileUploadContentProcess> _fileUploadContentProcess;
public StoreOrderService(Func<string, IFileUploadContentProcess> fileUploadContentProcess)
{
_fileUploadContentProcess = fileUploadContentProcess;
}
public async Task<IEnumerable<StoreOrder>> UploadStoreOrdersAsync(IFormFile file)
{
//// passing csv to process csv type(default), if xlsx, pass xlsx
var records = _fileUploadContentProcess("csv").ProcessUploads(file);
return records;
}
}
After lot of brainstroming, I found the below solution
Create a class for ServiceLocator
public class ServiceLocator
{
private ServiceProvider _currentServiceProvider;
private static ServiceProvider _serviceProvider;
public ServiceLocator(ServiceProvider currentServiceProvider)
{
_currentServiceProvider = currentServiceProvider;
}
public static ServiceLocator Current
{
get
{
return new ServiceLocator(_serviceProvider);
}
}
public static void SetLocatorProvider(ServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
_serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
}
public object GetInstance(Type serviceType)
{
return _currentServiceProvider.GetService(serviceType);
}
public TService GetInstance<TService>()
{
return _currentServiceProvider.GetService<TService>();
}
}
Step 2: Create interface and inherit in the classes and define the interface methods
Step 3: Define class name in appSettings.json and read the values in startup.cs
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
//reading from appSettings.json
string strClassName = Configuration["DependencyInjection:className"];
if (strClassName == "OnlineData")
services.AddTransient<<<InterfaceName>>, <<OnlineClassName>>>();
if (strClassName == "OfflineData")
services.AddTransient<<<InterfaceName>>, <<OfflineClassName>>>();
}
Step 4: Create object for the dynamic class inside controller/action method
InterfaceNamemyService = ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<>();

How to inject HttpContextAccessor directly from ConfigureServices method

My goal is to set a username string based on the environment I'll be working on that must be:
an arbitrary string for the development and staging environment
the HttpContext.User.Identity.Name in production.
This is because I have to be able to simulate different kind of users and I achieve this by calling the FindByIdAsync method on my custom implementation of UserIdentity using this username string as a parameter, like this:
public class HomeController : Controller
{
UserManager<AppUser> userManager;
AppUser connectedUser;
public HomeController(UserManager<AppUser> usrMgr, IContextUser ctxUser)
{
connectedUser = usrMgr.FindByNameAsync(ctxUser.ContextUserId).Result;
}
}
I started creating three appsettings.{environment}.json file for the three usual development, staging and production environments; development and staging .json files both have this configuration:
...
"Data": {
...
"ConnectedUser" : "__ADMIN"
}
...
while the production environment configuration file doesn't have this key.
I have created a simple interface
public interface IContextUser
{
public string ContextUserId { get; }
}
and its implementation:
public class ContextUser : IContextUser
{
string contextUser;
IHttpContextAccessor contextAccessor;
public ContextUser(IHttpContextAccessor ctxAccessor, string ctxUser = null)
{
contextUser = ctxUser;
contextAccessor = ctxAccessor;
}
public string ContextUserId => contextUser ?? contextAccessor.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
}
Now, I thought of simply configuring the ConfigureServices method in the Startup class:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
// --- add other services --- //
string ctxUser = Configuration["Data:ConnectedUser"];
services.AddSingleton(service => new ContextUser( ??? , ctxUser ));
}
but it needs an IHttpContextAccessor object, that seems unavailable at this stage of the application. How can I solve this issue?
The HttpContextAccessor makes use of a static AsyncLocal<T> property under the covers, which means that any HttpContextAccessor implementation will access the same data. This means you can simply do the following:
services.AddSingleton(c => new ContextUser(new HttpContextAccessor(), ctxUser));
// Don't forget to call this; otherwise the HttpContext property will be
// null on production.
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
If you find this too implicit, or don't the HttpContextAccessor implementation from breaking in the future, you can also do the following:
var accessor = new HttpContextAccessor();
services.AddSingleton<IHttpContextAccessor>(accessor);
services.AddSingleton(c => new ContextUser(accessor, ctxUser));
Or you can "pull out" the registered instance out of the ServiceCollection class:
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
var accessor = (IHttpContextAccessor)services.Last(
s => s.ServiceType == typeof(IHttpContextAccessor)).ImplementationInstance;
services.AddSingleton(c => new ContextUser(accessor, ctxUser));
What I find a more pleasant solution, however, especially from a design perspective, is to split the ContextUser class; it currently seems to implement two different solutions. You can split those:
public sealed class HttpContextContextUser : IContextUser
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor accessor;
public HttpContextContextUser(IHttpContextAccessor accessor) =>
this.accessor = accessor ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("accessor");
public string ContextUserId => this.accessor.HttpContext.User.Identity.Name;
}
public sealed class FixedContextUser : IContextUser
{
public FixedContextUser(string userId) =>
this.ContextUserId = userId ?? throw new ArgumentNullException("userId");
public string ContextUserId { get; }
}
Now, depending on the environment you're running in, you register either one of them:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
if (this.Configuration.IsProduction())
{
services.AddSingleton<IContextUser, HttpContextContextUser>();
}
else
{
string ctxUser = Configuration["Data:ConnectedUser"];
services.AddSingleton<IContextUser>(new FixedContextUser(ctxUser));
}
}

AutoMapper testing and dependency injection for resolvers

Im writing a test for an automapper map. One of the destination members in the map requires a value resolver, and that value resolver has service dependencies which are injected. I want to use the real implementation for the resolver (since thats part of the map im testing) but Id like to use mocks for the dependencies the resolver has.
Ofcourse I want to try to avoid using an ioc container for in my tests, but how do I easily resolve my value resolver's dependencies without one?
This is my rather simplified example, in the real case there are several resolvers with sometimes many dependencies, and I really dont like to basically implement my own dependency resolver in my tests. Should I use a lightweight ioc container?
[TestFixture]
public class MapperTest
{
private IMyService myService;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
Mapper.Initialize(config =>
{
config.ConstructServicesUsing(Resolve);
config.AddProfile<MyProfile>();
});
}
public T Resolve<T>()
{
return (T) Resolve(typeof (T));
}
public object Resolve(Type type)
{
if (type == typeof(MyValueResolver))
return new MyValueResolver(Resolve<IMyService>());
if (type == typeof(IMyService))
return myService;
Assert.Fail("Can not resolve type " + type.AssemblyQualifiedName);
return null;
}
[Test]
public void ShouldConfigureCorrectly()
{
Mapper.AssertConfigurationIsValid();
}
[Test]
public void ShouldMapStuff()
{
var source = new Source() {...};
var child = new Child();
myService = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IMyService>();
myService .Stub(x => x.DoServiceStuff(source)).Return(child);
var result = Mapper.Map<ISource, Destination>(source);
result.Should().Not.Be.Null();
result.Child.Should().Be.SameInstanceAs(child);
}
}
public class MyProfile : Profile
{
protected override void Configure()
{
base.Configure();
CreateMap<ISource, Destination>()
.ForMember(m => m.Child, c => c.ResolveUsing<MyResolver>());
}
}
public class MyResolver: ValueResolver<ISource, Destination>
{
private readonly IMyService _myService;
public MyResolver(IMyService myService)
{
_myService = myService;
}
protected override Child ResolveCore(ISource source)
{
return _myService.DoServiceStuff(source);
}
}
}
Here's one solution, but basically its what iv done already:
http://groups.google.com/group/automapper-users/browse_thread/thread/aea8bbe32b1f590a/f3185d30322d8109
The suggestion is to use a service locator which are set up differently depending on test or real implementation.