I can't seem to find this on their site or here. I'm hoping the answer is YES. Specifically I want to write a Verifier to check for unique key violations (I know I will have to raise the isolation level to Serializable). This won't work unless the Verifier runs in the same transaction as the Save.
DevForce does not use the same transaction for validation and save processing. Within the context of an EntityServerSaveInterceptor, authorization and validation are performed and then a TransactionScope is opened when doing the actual save. If you do a query within a verifier it will use a separate TransactionScope.
You can work around this behavior with a little extra work in your custom EntityServerSaveInterceptor. Override the ValidateSave function to bypass validation, then override the ExecuteSave method to open a TransactionScope and then do your validation logic before calling the base save logic. The TransactionScope opened by DF during the save will enlist in your TransactionScope. Something like this:
public class EntityServerSaveManager : EntityServerSaveInterceptor {
protected override bool ValidateSave() {
// will do validation later
return true;
}
protected override bool ExecuteSave() {
using (var ts = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required, this.SaveOptions.TransactionSettings.ToTransactionOptions())) {
// Do validation logic now
...
// Now do save
base.ExecuteSave();
ts.Complete();
}
}
}
Related
I have the following method in an #Service class which has #Transactional defined:
#Override
public Result add(#NonNull final UserSaveRequest request) {
final Result<Email> emailResult = Email.create(request.getEmail());
final Result<UserFirstName> userFirstNameResult = UserFirstName.create(request.getFirstName());
final Result<UserLastName> userLastNameResult = UserLastName.create(request.getLastName());
final Result combinedResult = Result.combine(emailResult, userFirstNameResult, userLastNameResult);
if (combinedResult.isFailure()) {
return Result.fail(combinedResult.getErrorMessage());
}
final Result<User> userResult = User.create(emailResult.getValue(), userFirstNameResult.getValue(), userLastNameResult.getValue());
if (userResult.isFailure()) {
return Result.fail(userResult.getErrorMessage());
}
this.userRepository.save(userResult.getValue());
return Result.ok();
}
Now as you can see I utilize a Result class which can contain a return value or an error message as I don't think using exceptions for flow control is very clean.
The problem I now have is; the complete method is bound in one transaction and if one database call should fail the whole transaction will be rolled back. In my model however, after the this.userRepository.save(userResult.getValue()); call, if something would happen that would force me to return a failed result, I can't undo that save(userResult.getVlaue()); call seeing as I don't use exceptions for flow control.
Is this a problem that has an elegant solution, or is this a place where I need to make a trade-off between using exceptions as flow control and having to mentally keep track of the ordering of my statements in these kind of situations?
Yes, you can trigger rollback manually. Try this:
TransactionAspectSupport.currentTransactionStatus().setRollbackOnly();
More information: https://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/5.0.7.RELEASE/spring-framework-reference/data-access.html#transaction-declarative-rolling-back
Imagine there is a method in appservice which upgrade data and finally a report is made in Pdf form through Ssrs. All methods are unit of work, so data is not committed in server until calling method uow.CompleteAsync(). therefore GenerateSampleReport() can not be called. To solve the problem we have used [unit of work (Isdisabled = true) so the method is written so:
[UnitOfWork(IsDisabled =true)]
public async Task Method()
{
using (var uow = UnitOfWorkManager.Begin())
{
//some data manipulation
await uow.CompleteAsync();
}
var pdfFile GenerateSampleReport();
}
But, while providing the report, if there is any exception, report can not be generated and data manipulation must be roll backed(problem about data integrity). How to solve the problem?
you shouldn't begin your own Unit Of Work. And don't disable UnitOfWork. Normally if Method() is an application service method then this should work as you want.
public async Task Method()
{
//some data manipulation...
var pdfFile GenerateSampleReport();//if any exception occurs in this line, the db transaction will be rolled back.
}
have you checked this before?
Is there a way to pass data to dependencies registered with either Execution Context Scope or Lifetime Scope in Simple Injector?
One of my dependencies requires a piece of data in order to be constructed in the dependency chain. During HTTP and WCF requests, this data is easy to get to. For HTTP requests, the data is always present in either the query string or as a Request.Form parameter (and thus is available from HttpContext.Current). For WCF requests, the data is always present in the OperationContext.Current.RequestContext.RequestMessage XML, and can be parsed out. I have many command handler implementations that depend on an interface implementation that needs this piece of data, and they work great during HTTP and WCF scoped lifestyles.
Now I would like to be able to execute one or more of these commands using the Task Parallel Library so that it will execute in a separate thread. It is not feasible to move the piece of data out into a configuration file, class, or any other static artifact. It must initially be passed to the application either via HTTP or WCF.
I know how to create a hybrid lifestyle using Simple Injector, and already have one set up as hybrid HTTP / WCF / Execution Context Scope (command interfaces are async, and return Task instead of void). I also know how to create a command handler decorator that will start a new Execution Context Scope when needed. The problem is, I don't know how or where (or if I can) "save" this piece of data so that is is available when the dependency chain needs it to construct one of the dependencies.
Is it possible? If so, how?
Update
Currently, I have an interface called IProvideHostWebUri with two implementations: HttpHostWebUriProvider and WcfHostWebUriProvider. The interface and registration look like this:
public interface IProvideHostWebUri
{
Uri HostWebUri { get; }
}
container.Register<IProvideHostWebUri>(() =>
{
if (HttpContext.Current != null)
return container.GetInstance<HttpHostWebUriProvider>();
if (OperationContext.Current != null)
return container.GetInstance<WcfHostWebUriProvider>();
throw new NotSupportedException(
"The IProvideHostWebUri service is currently only supported for HTTP and WCF requests.");
}, scopedLifestyle); // scopedLifestyle is the hybrid mentioned previously
So ultimately unless I gut this approach, my goal would be to create a third implementation of this interface which would then depend on some kind of context to obtain the Uri (which is just constructed from a string in the other 2 implementations).
#Steven's answer seems to be what I am looking for, but I am not sure how to make the ITenantContext implementation immutable and thread-safe. I don't think it will need to be made disposable, since it just contains a Uri value.
So what you are basically saying is that:
You have an initial request that contains some contextual information captured in the request 'header'.
During this request you want to kick off a background operation (on a different thread).
The contextual information from the initial request should stay available when running in the background thread.
The short answer is that Simple Injector does not contain anything that allows you to do so. The solution is in creating a piece of infrastructure that allows moving this contextual information along.
Say for instance you are processing command handlers (wild guess here ;-)), you can specify a decorator as follows:
public class BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator<T> : ICommandHandler<T>
{
private readonly ITenantContext tenantContext;
private readonly Container container;
private readonly Func<ICommandHandler<T>> decorateeFactory;
public BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator(ITenantContext tenantContext,
Container container, Func<ICommandHandler<T>> decorateeFactory) {
this.tenantContext = tenantContext;
this.container = container;
this.decorateeFactory = decorateeFactory;
}
public void Handle(T command) {
// Capture the contextual info in a local variable
// NOTE: This object must be immutable and thread-safe.
var tenant = this.tenantContext.CurrentTenant;
// Kick off a new background operation
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
using (container.BeginExecutionContextScope()) {
// Load a service that allows setting contextual information
var context = this.container.GetInstance<ITenantContextApplier>();
// Set the context for this thread, before resolving the handler
context.SetCurrentTenant(tenant);
// Resolve the handler
var decoratee = this.decorateeFactory.Invoke();
// And execute it.
decoratee.Handle(command);
}
});
}
}
Note that in the example I make use of an imaginary ITenantContext abstraction, assuming that you need to supply the commands with information about the current tenant, but any other sort of contextual information will obviously do as well.
The decorator is a small piece of infrastructure that allows you to process commands in the background and it is its responsibility to make sure all the required contextual information is moved to the background thread as well.
To be able to do this, the contextual information is captured and used as a closure in the background thread. I created an extra abstraction for this, namely ITenantContextApplier. Do note that the tenant context implementation can implement both the ITenantContext and the ITenantContextApplier interface. If however you define the ITenantContextApplier in your composition root, it will be impossible for the application to change the context, since it does not have a dependency on ITenantContextApplier.
Here's an example:
// Base library
public interface ITenantContext { }
// Business Layer
public class SomeCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<Some> {
public SomeCommandHandler(ITenantContext context) { ... }
}
// Composition Root
public static class CompositionRoot {
// Make the ITenantContextApplier private so nobody can see it.
// Do note that this is optional; there's no harm in making it public.
private interface ITenantContextApplier {
void SetCurrentTenant(Tenant tenant);
}
private class AspNetTenantContext : ITenantContextApplier, ITenantContext {
// Implement both interfaces
}
private class BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator<T> { ... }
public static Container Bootstrap(Container container) {
container.RegisterPerWebRequest<ITenantContext, AspNetTenantContext>();
container.Register<ITenantContextApplier>(() =>
container.GetInstance<ITenantContext>() as ITenantContextApplier);
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator<>));
}
}
A different approach would be to just make the complete ITenantContext available to the background thread, but to be able to pull this off, you need to make sure that:
The implementation is immutable and thus thread-safe.
The implementation doesn't require disposing, because it will typically be disposed when the original request ends.
I'm prototyping some simple audit logging functionality. I have a mid sized entity model (~50 entities) and I'd like to implement audit logging on about 5 or 6. Ultimately I'd like to get this working on Inserts & Deletes as well, but for now I'm just focusing on the updates.
The problem is, when I do session.Save (or SaveOrUpdate) to my auditLog table from within the EventListener, the original object is persisted (updated) correctly, but my AuditLog object never gets inserted.
I think it's a problem with both the Pre and Post event listeners being called to late in the NHibernate save life cycle for the session to still be used.
//in my ISessionFactory Build method
nHibernateConfiguration.EventListeners.PreUpdateEventListeners =
new IPreUpdateEventListener[]{new AuditLogListener()};
//in my AuditLogListener
public class AuditLogListener : IPreUpdateEventListener
{
public bool OnPreUpdate(PreUpdateEvent #event)
{
string message = //code to look at #event.Entity & build message - this works
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(message))
AuditLogHelper.Log(message, #event.Session); //Session is an IEventSource
return false; //Don't veto the change
}
}
//In my helper
public static void Log(string message, IEventSource session)
{
var user = session.QueryOver<User>()
.Where(x => x.Name == "John")
.SingleOrDefault();
//have confirmed a valid user is found
var logItem = new AdministrationAuditLog
{
LogDate = DateTime.Now,
Message = message,
User = user
};
(session as ISession).SaveOrUpdate(logItem);
}
When it hits the session.SaveOrUpdate() in the last method, no errors occur. No exceptions are thrown. it seems to succeed and moves on. But nothing happens. The audit log entry never appears in the database.
The only way I've been able to get this to work it to create a completely new Session & Transaction inside this method, but this isn't really ideal, as the code proceeds back out of the listener method, hits the session.Transaction.Commit() in my main app, and if that transaction fails, then I've got an orphaned log message in my audit table for somethign that never happened.
Any pointers where I might be going wrong ?
EDIT
I've also tried to SaveOrUpdate the LogItem using a child session from the events based on some comments in this thread. http://ayende.com/blog/3987/nhibernate-ipreupdateeventlistener-ipreinserteventlistener
var childSession = session.GetSession(EntityMode.Poco);
var logItem = new AdministrationAuditLog
{
LogDate = DateTime.Now,
Message = message,
User = databaseLogin.User
};
childSession.SaveOrUpdate(logItem);
Still nothing appears in my Log table in the db. No errors or exceptions.
You need to create a child session, currentSession.GetSession(EntityMode.Poco), in your OnPreUpdate method and use this in your log method. Depending on your flushmode setting, you might need to flush the child session as well.
Also, any particular reason you want to roll out your own solution? FYI, NHibernate Envers is now a pretty mature library.
I am in reference to Spring Roo In Action (book from Manning). Somewhere in the book it says "Roo marks the test class as #Transactional so that the unit tests automatically roll back any change.
Here is the illustrating method:
#Test
#Transactional
public void addAndFetchCourseViaRepo() {
Course c = new Course();
c.setCourseType(CourseTypeEnum.CONTINUING_EDUCATION);
c.setName("Stand-up Comedy");
c.setDescription(
"You'll laugh, you'll cry, it will become a part of you.");
c.setMaxiumumCapacity(10);
c.persist();
c.flush();
c.clear();
Assert.assertNotNull(c.getId());
Course c2 = Course.findCourse(c.getId());
Assert.assertNotNull(c2);
Assert.assertEquals(c.getName(), c2.getName());
Assert.assertEquals(c2.getDescription(), c.getDescription());
Assert.assertEquals(
c.getMaxiumumCapacity(), c2.getMaxiumumCapacity());
Assert.assertEquals(c.getCourseType(), c2.getCourseType());
}
However, I don't understand why changes in this method would be automatically rolled back if no RuntimeException occurs...
Quote from documentation:
By default, the framework will create and roll back a transaction for each test. You simply write code that can assume the existence of a transaction. [...] In addition, if test methods delete the contents of selected tables while running within a transaction, the transaction will roll back by default, and the database will return to its state prior to execution of the test. Transactional support is provided to your test class via a PlatformTransactionManager bean defined in the test's application context.
So, in other words, SpringJUnit4ClassRunner who runs your tests always do transaction rollback after test execution.
I'm trying to find a method that allows me to do a rollback when one of the elements of a list fails for a reason within the business rules established (ie: when throw my customize exception)
Example, (the idea is not recording anything if one element in list fails)
public class ControlSaveElement {
public void saveRecords(List<MyRecord> listRecords) {
Boolean status = true;
foreach(MyRecord element: listRecords) {
// Here is business rules
if(element.getStatus() == false) {
// something
status = false;
}
element.persist();
}
if(status == false) {
// I need to do roll back from all elements persisted before
}
}
...
}
Any idea? I'm working with Roo 1.2.2..