How to get the PerformContext from hangfire API - aspnetboilerplate

In our project we are using aspnetzero template. This template allows a simple but abstracted usage of hangfire. Now we would like to add Hangfire.Console to our project which would allow us to write logs to hangfires dashboard.
In order to write a log statement to the dashboard console we have to access the PerformContext of the current running job. Unfortunately because of the abstraction in aspnetzero we can't inject the PerformContext as it would be planned by hangfire. What we do have access to is the hangfire namespace and all it's static objects.
Therefore my question: Is there a way to get the PerformContext by another way than passing null to the execution method?
What I have tried so far:
By using the IServerFilter interface a method OnPerforming should be called. But unfortunately this is not the case within aspnetzero background jobs.
I tried to overwrite/extend the given base class BackgroundJob< T > of aspnetzero but with no luck. Perhaps someone can give me a hint in this direction.

I used JobFilterAttribute with a IServerFilter.
Example:
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)]
public class HangFirePerformContextAttribute : JobFilterAttribute, IServerFilter
{
private static PerformContext _Context;
public static PerformContext PerformContext
{
get
{
return new PerformContext(_Context);
}
}
public void OnPerformed(PerformedContext filterContext)
{
Context = (PerformContext)filterContext;
_Context = Context;
}
public void OnPerforming(PerformingContext filterContext)
{
Context = (PerformContext)filterContext;
_Context = Context;
}
}
And I create a new Class AsyncBackgroundJobHangFire<TArgs> : AsyncBackgroundJob<TArgs>
Exemple:
[HangFirePerformContext]
public abstract class AsyncBackgroundJobHangFire<TArgs> : AsyncBackgroundJob<TArgs>
{
public PerformContext Context { get; set; }
protected async override Task ExecuteAsync(TArgs args)
{
Context = HangFirePerformContextAttribute.PerformContext;
await ExecuteAsync(args, Context);
}
protected abstract Task ExecuteAsync(TArgs args, PerformContext context);
}
It´s Work
In a Class of job i use a AsyncBackgroundJobHangFire
And de method is
[UnitOfWork]
protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(string args, PerformContext context)
{
}

I have suffered using abp's implementation of hangfire jobs as well. I don't know how to answer your question precisely, but I was able to access a PerformingContext by implementing an attribute that extends JobFilterAttribute and implements IClientFilter, IServerFilter, IElectStateFilter, IApplyStateFilter. The interfaces will depend on your requirements, but I was capable of accessing PerformingContext this way.

You should never use a static field for that, even if marked with a ThreadStaticAttribute , please refer to this link for more details
https://discuss.hangfire.io/t/use-hangfire-job-id-in-the-code/2621/2

Related

Why would an application only create a database application when needed and not at the start?

I have an application that I am working on. The call to the data manager to set up looks like this:
public partial class App : Application
{
public App()
{
InitializeComponent();
MainPage = new Japanese.MainPage();
}
public static DataManager DB
{
get
{
if (AS.dm == null)
{
AS.dm = new DataManager();
}
return AS.dm;
}
}
protected override void OnStart()
{
AS.GetSettings();
AS.selectedPhraseCount = AS.dm.GetTotalPhrasesCountForSelectedCategories();
}
In other words the datamanager is set up when it's first needed.
Can someone tell me if there is any advantage to doing this. It would seem to me to be simpler just to do a call to AS.dm = new DataManager() in the onStart event.
public partial class DataManager
{
protected static object locker = new object();
protected SQLiteConnection db1;
protected SQLiteConnection db2;
public DataManager()
{
db1 = DependencyService.Get<ISQLiteDB1>().GetConnection();
db2 = DependencyService.Get<ISQLiteDB2>().GetConnection();
You'd need to post a bit more code (for example where are dm and AS declared?) to be absolutely sure, but this method of having a static declaration with a private constructor is called the Singleton pattern and is designed to ensure that only one instance of the object (in your case the DataManager) can ever exist.
See this existing question
However, your code looks slightly odd in the OnStart because it looks like you are referencing the datamanager using the dm backing variable rather than the DM property.

How can i use custom dbcontext (Audit Log) with sharprepository

I have a custom dbcontext which name is Tracker-enabled DbContext (https://github.com/bilal-fazlani/tracker-enabled-dbcontext).I want to use it for audit log
And how can I implement EFRepository?
I implemented tracker-enabled-context but i cant solve how override sharp repo commit method.
public class HayEntities : TrackerContext
{
static HayEntities()
{
Database.SetInitializer<HayEntities>(null);
}
public HayEntities() : base(HayEntities)
{
this.Configuration.ProxyCreationEnabled = false;
this.Configuration.LazyLoadingEnabled = true;
this.Configuration.ValidateOnSaveEnabled = false;
}
public DbSet<Dummy> Dummys{ get; set; }
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new DummyConfiguration());
} }
}
public class DummyRepository : ConfigurationBasedRepository<DE.Dummy, long>, IDummyRepository
{
private readonly IRepository<DE.Dummy, long> _servisHasarRepository;
public DummyRepository (HayEntities hayEntities, ICachingStrategy<DE.Dummy, long> cachingStrategy = null)
{this.CachingEnabled = false;
_dummyRepository = new EfRepository<DE.Dummy, long>(hayEntities, cachingStrategy);
}
public void UpdateOrCreate() {
//In this area how can override save/commit method
}
}
You will want to tell SharpRepository to use an IoC provider to inject the DbContext. This will take care of getting the proper DbContext for your EfRepository.
If you want to control things based on the configuration and have custom repositories so you can implement your own mehods like UpdateOrCreate() then you would inherit from ConfigurationBasedRepository as you have in the example.
There are more details on setting up IoC with SharpRepository here: http://fairwaytech.com/2013/02/sharprepository-configuration/ (look in the "Entity Framework and Sharing the DbContext" section)
First look on NuGet for SharpRepository.Ioc.* to find the specific IoC you are using. If you are using StructureMap then you would do something like this.
In your StructureMap configuration:
// Hybrid (once per thread or ASP.NET request if you’re in a web application)
For<DbContext>()
.HybridHttpOrThreadLocalScoped()
.Use<HayEntities>()
.Ctor<string>("connectionString").Is(entityConnectionString);
Then you need to tell SharpRepository to use StructureMap by calling this in your startup code:
RepositoryDependencyResolver.SetDependencyResolver(new StructureMapDependencyResolver(ObjectFactory.Container));
After doing these things, then if you use EfRepository then it will know to ask StructureMap for the DbContext.
Now in your example above where you are using ConfigurationBasedRepository, I would suggest setting the caching in the configuration file instead of in code since you are using the configuration to load the repository. Since IoC is handling the DbContext you don't need to do anyhing with that and you can focus on the custom method you want to write.
public class DummyRepository : ConfigurationBasedRepository<DE.Dummy, long>, IDummyRepository
{
public void UpdateOrCreate()
{
// You have access to the underlying IRepository<> which is going to be an EfRepository in your case assuming you did that in the config file
// here you can call Repository.Add(), or Reposiory.Find(), etc.
}
}

Are there any problems with using a static property to return DbContext

I've been trying to implement a new MVC3 project with Entity Framework 4.1, which instantiates the dbContext on Application_BeginRequest, and disposes it on Application_EndRequest
protected virtual void Application_BeginRequest()
{
HttpContext.Current.Items["_EntityContext"] = new EntityContext();
}
protected virtual void Application_EndRequest()
{
var entityContext = HttpContext.Current.Items["_EntityContext"] as EntityContext;
if (entityContext != null)
entityContext.Dispose();
}
The EntityContext class is defined as follows:
public class EntityContext : MyEntities, IDisposable
{
**//should this be static?**
public static EntityContext Current
{
get { return HttpContext.Current.Items["_EntityContext"] as EntityContext; }
}
void IDisposable.Dispose()
{
Current.Dispose();
}
My question is, will defining my Current property as static cause any problems in a multi-user scenario?
Your lifespan on DbContext is WAY too long. You should be spinning up a bare minimum of one per request, and even better one per access to the database.
As insta pointed out, you should instance the context when you actually need it. There's no advantage making your context lifespan that long.
As a side-note, there's no need to call explicitly the Dispose method, since the .NET Garbage Collector will do that more efficiently for you.
You could instance the context per class, since you're using MVC, instance the context once per Controller.
public class MyTableObjectController : Controller
{
MyContext context = new MyContext();
public ActionResult Index()
{
var model = context.MyTableObjects;
return View(model);
}
}
I might ask, why are you trying to keep your context available between Begin and End request? Are you trying to avoid instancing it?

ASP.NET Web API Ninject constructor injected custom filter and attributes

I'm struggling with getting a custom attribute / filter working with ninject, constructor injection on the ASP.NET Web API.
Here's a few snippets to give some context...
//controller
[ApiAuthorise]
public IEnumerable<Thing> Get()
// Attribute definition with no body
public class ApiAuthoriseAttribute : FilterAttribute {}
// Custom Filter definition
public class ApiAuthoriseFilter : IAuthorizationFilter
{
public void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext)
{ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
//Ninject module for my API authorisation
public class ApiAuthoriseModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
this.BindFilter<ApiAuthoriseFilter>(FilterScope.Action, 0)
.WhenActionMethodHas<ApiAuthoriseAttribute>()
}}
//The registerServices(IKernel kernel) method in NinjectMVC3.cs
kernel.Load(new ApiAuthoriseModule());
That's literally all the code I have concerning this filter and attribute.
From what I understand I don't have to explicitly add the filter to the global filter collection as ninject takes care of that, is that correct?
If I place a constructor inside my attribute and throw an exception from within there I can see that the attribute is firing.
My suspicion is something I'm doing wrong within the Ninject side of things but after spending an afternoon reading others examples that appear to be identical to mine I'm know asking for help :)
TIA
There are different classes that you need to work with in Web API, not the standard System.Web.Mvc.FilterAttribute and System.Web.Mvc.IAuthorizationFilter that are used in normal controllers:
public class ApiAuthoriseAttribute : System.Web.Http.Filters.FilterAttribute
{
}
public class ApiAuthoriseFilter : System.Web.Http.Filters.IAuthorizationFilter
{
public System.Threading.Tasks.Task<HttpResponseMessage> ExecuteAuthorizationFilterAsync(System.Web.Http.Controllers.HttpActionContext actionContext, System.Threading.CancellationToken cancellationToken, Func<System.Threading.Tasks.Task<HttpResponseMessage>> continuation)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public bool AllowMultiple
{
get { return false; }
}
}
Then you will obviously have to modify Ninject and the filter binding syntax (BindFilter extension method) to be able to register this new classes. Or wait for Ninject.MVC4 which will include this functionality.

Moq and Command Pattern .I am struggling can you help?

New to the world of TDD and I have soon find out that mocking at times is not as easy.
We are using MOQ at work so I need to learn how to do this using moq
I have some code using the command pattern and works a treat.However If were to test drive it I would not know how to do it implementing the code below.
I have done the following
Created BaseToolStripMenuItem:ToolStripMenuItem and added a Command Property (see below)
Created a windows form and added a menuStrip with 2 item Open and Exit
In the form I just add to map the command to a button and all works a treat.
I would like to change the code so that I can UnitTest using Moq but cannot see how???
Can you help?
Any suggestions?
Thanks a lot!!
public interface ICommand
{
void Execute()
}
public abstract class BaseCmd :ICommand
{
protected ProcessMenuCommand ProcessCommand;
protected MenuCommandFactory Factory;
protected BaseCmd(ProcessMenuCommand processMenuCommand, MenuCommandFactory cmdfactory)
{
ProcessCommand = processMenuCommand;
Factory = cmdfactory;
}
abstract public void Execute();
}
public class BaseToolStripMenuItem : ToolStripMenuItem
{
public BaseToolStripMenuItem()
{
Click += MenuItemClick;
Command = null;
}
public BaseCmd Command { get; set; }
private void MenuItemClick(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
if (Command != null) Command.Execute();
}
}
public class MenuCommandFactory
{
private readonly ProcessMenuCommand _processMenuCommand;
public MenuCommandFactory(ProcessMenuCommand processMenuCommand)
{
_processMenuCommand = processMenuCommand;
}
public OpenFileCmd OpenFile()
{
return new OpenFileCmd(_processMenuCommand,this);
}
public ExitCmd Exit()
{
return new ExitCmd(_processMenuCommand, this);
}
}
public class OpenFileCmd:BaseCmd
{
public OpenFileCmd(ProcessMenuCommand processMenu,MenuCommandFactory menuCommandFactory)
:base(processMenu,menuCommandFactory)
{
}
public override void Execute()
{
ProcessCommand.OpenFile();
}
}
public class ProcessMenuCommand
{
public void OpenFile()
{
MessageBox.Show("Open a file");
}
public void Exit()
{
MessageBox.Show("Exiting");
}
}
public class ExitCmd:BaseCmd
{
public ExitCmd(ProcessMenuCommand processMenu, MenuCommandFactory menuCommandFactory)
:base(processMenu,menuCommandFactory)
{
}
public override void Execute()
{
ProcessCommand.Exit();
}
}
//In the form
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private ProcessMenuCommand menuCommandProcessor;
private MenuCommandFactory factory;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
// Created editor and factory.
menuCommandProcessor = new ProcessMenuCommand();
factory = new MenuCommandFactory(menuCommandProcessor);
// Get concrete command objects from factory and assign to corresponding menu items and tool strip buttons.
tsOpen.Command = factory.OpenFile();
tsExit.Command = factory.Exit();
}
}
However If were to test drive it I would not know how to do it implementing the code below
The idea about TDD is that it drives you towards an implementation. There are many implementations you could never arrive at using TDD, so your question doesn't really make much sense.
Try to write some tests that drive you towards your goal without having a preconceived image of the solution at which you wish to arrive. It will often turn out that you end up at an entirely different (and better) place than what you originally thought.
A simple Novice Rule: no abstract classes. Try designing again with only interfaces and concrete classes. You'll notice it's easier to test-drive the result.
As for "how to TDD a Command object", a Command is just a class that provides a single action. Test-drive it the same way you would test-drive any method, except you name the method Execute().

Resources