I got a code from another team, this is a .net core 2.2 web api with a controller : CustomerDemandController and I have to create another one (ManagerDemandController) with pretty much the same methods in it. In both of the controllers, I have a "Get by Id" method. which looks like this :
[ApiVersion(Constants.LatestVersion)]
[Route("api/{version:apiVersion}/[controller]/")]
[ControllerName("customerdemands")]
[Produces("application/json")]
[EnableCors("SiteCorsPolicy")]
public class CustomerDemandController : ControllerBase
{
private const string GetByIdOperation = "GetById";
[Get("{id}", Name = GetByIdOperation)]
public async Task<ActionResult<CustomerDemandResponse>> GetAsync([FromRoute] string id)
=> await this.GetAsync(() => Service.GetByIdAsync(id),
ConversionHelper.Convert);
...
(same method in the other controller with ManagerDemandResponse as response).
Now that I have added the new controller, I want to test if the old one still works and this is not the case anymore due to the same route name "GetById" in both controllers.
System.InvalidOperationException : The following errors occurred with attribute routing information:
Error 1: Attribute routes with the same name 'GetById' must have the
same template: Action:
'DemandManagement.Api.Controllers.CustomerDemandController.GetAsync
(DemandManagement.Api)' - Template:
'api/{version:apiVersion}/customerdemands/{id}' Action:
'DemandManagement.Api.Controllers.ManagerDemandController.GetAsync
(DemandManagement.Api)' - Template:
'api/{version:apiVersion}/managerdemands/{id}'
How can I have the same templates as the controller name is different ?
The issue here is the route name and not necessarily the template. Change the route Name. Route Names should be unique to avoid route conflicts.
//...
public class CustomerDemandController : ControllerBase
{
private const string GetByIdOperation = "GetCustomerDemandById"; //<-- Unique
[Get("{id}", Name = GetByIdOperation)]
public async Task<ActionResult<CustomerDemandResponse>> GetAsync([FromRoute] string id)
=> await this.GetAsync(() => Service.GetByIdAsync(id),
ConversionHelper.Convert);
//...
Route names can be used to generate a URL based on a specific route. Route names have no impact on the URL matching behavior of routing and are only used for URL generation. Route names must be unique application-wide.
emphasis mine
Reference Routing to controller actions in ASP.NET Core : Route Name
I have a baseproject and different inheriting projects. The base project has controllers I may want to occasionally inherit and override (partially).
Base project:
public virtual ActionResult Index(string filter = "", int page = 1)
Sub project:
public override ActionResult Index(string filter = "", int page = 1)
Now I changed the routeConfig, so the routing is mapped to the logic from the correct namespace.
context.MapRoute(
"Routename",
"AreaName/{controller}/{action}/{id}",
new { controller = "ControllerName", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional },
new string[] { "ProjectName.Areas.AreaName.SpecificControllers"}
);
However, I want new added routes to be taken from the specific project should they exist there. The ones which are not existant should be taken from the base project's controller. (The specific controller basically starts out empty and will only contains methods for when overriding is desirable). To try and implement this functionality, I added the other project to the routing here:
context.MapRoute(
"Routename",
"AreaName/{controller}/{action}/{id}",
new { controller = "ControllerName", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional },
new string[] { "ProjectName.Areas.AreaName.SpecificControllers", "ProjectName.Areas.AreaName.GenericControllers"}
);
However, this obviously leads to the following error:
Multiple types were found that match the controller named 'MethodName'. This can happen if the route that services this request ('CRM/{controller}/{action}/{id}') does not specify namespaces to search for a controller that matches the request. If this is the case, register this route by calling an overload of the 'MapRoute' method that takes a 'namespaces' parameter.
The request for 'MethodName' has found the following matching controllers:
ProjectName.Areas.AreaName.SpecificControllers.ControllerName
ProjectName.Areas.AreaName.GenericControllers.ControllerName
Is there a way to implement this so that my routing will always look at the specific controller first and only at the generic controller if it cannot find the method in the specific controller?
Generally routing choose the base controller method as far as i know.
There is no direct support to resolve the issue you mentioned in this question.
There are couple of workarounds to resolve this.
Option 1 (My Favourite): Admin on base and Route on inherited controller.
To Use [Area] on the base controller and [Route] on the inherited controllers.
I personally like this approach because it keeps the code inside controller clean.
[Area("Admin")]
AdminBaseController: Controller { }
[Route("Users"))
UserAdminController : AdminBaseController { }
Url would be /Admin/Users/Action
Option 2: Use Specific Route Prefix in derived controller actions
[Route("Admin")]
AdminBaseController: Controller { }
public static string UserAdminControllerPrefix = "/Users";
UserAdminController : AdminBaseController {
[Route(UserAdminControllerPrefix + "/ActionName")]
public void ActionName() { }
}
Formed URL would be /Admin/Users/ActionName
you can choose whichever option which fits your style.
Hope this helps.
Both the approaches mentioned in this answer : ASP.NET Core MVC Attribute Routing Inheritance
Technical Information
AngularJS single page app
Umbraco 7.3.0 website, extended to register routes via Umbraco.Core.ApplicationEventHandler in a separate class library
Scenario
I have an AngularJS single page app (SPA) that I'm trying to pre-render via an external PhantomJS service.
I want MVC's route handler to ignore the route /?_escaped_fragment_={fragment}, so the request can be handled directly by ASP.NET and thus passed on to IIS to proxy the request.
In Theory
Umbraco is built on ASP.NET MVC.
Routes are configurable via System.Web.Routing.RouteCollection class.
When extending Umbraco with custom routes, any routes configured via the System.Web.Routing.RouteTable will take precedence over Umbraco routes, thus never being handled by Umbraco**
Possible methods for my scenario
public void Ignore(string url) or
public void Ignore(string url, object constraints)
**I could be wrong. As far as I'm aware, custom routing takes precedence as it's done before the Umbraco routes are registered. However I'm unsure whether telling MVC to ignore a route would also prevent Umbraco from handling that route.
In Practise
I have attempted to ignore the routes with the following:
Attempt one:
routes.Ignore("?_escaped_fragment_={*pathInfo}");
This throws an error: The route URL cannot start with a '/' or '~' character and it cannot contain a '?' character.
Attempt two:
routes.Ignore("{*escapedfragment}", new { escapedfragment = #".*\?_escaped_fragment_=\/(.*)" });
This didn't result in an error, however Umbraco still picked up the request and handed me back my root page. Regex validation on Regexr.
Questions
Can MVC actually ignore a route based on its query string?
Is my knowledge of Umbraco's routing correct?
Is my regex correct?
Or am I missing something?
The built-in routing behavior doesn't take the query string into consideration. However, routing is extensible and can be based on query string if needed.
The simplest solution is to make a custom RouteBase subclass that can detect your query string, and then use the StopRoutingHandler to ensure the route doesn't function.
public class IgnoreQueryStringKeyRoute : RouteBase
{
private readonly string queryStringKey;
public IgnoreQueryStringKeyRoute(string queryStringKey)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(queryStringKey))
throw new ArgumentNullException("queryStringKey is required");
this.queryStringKey = queryStringKey;
}
public override RouteData GetRouteData(HttpContextBase httpContext)
{
if (httpContext.Request.QueryString.AllKeys.Any(x => x == queryStringKey))
{
return new RouteData(this, new StopRoutingHandler());
}
// Tell MVC this route did not match
return null;
}
public override VirtualPathData GetVirtualPath(RequestContext requestContext, RouteValueDictionary values)
{
// Tell MVC this route did not match
return null;
}
}
Usage
public class RouteConfig
{
public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes)
{
routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}");
// This route should go first
routes.Add(
name: "IgnoreQuery",
item: new IgnoreQueryStringKeyRoute("_escaped_fragment_"));
// Any other routes should be registered after...
routes.MapRoute(
name: "Default",
url: "{controller}/{action}/{id}",
defaults: new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }
);
}
}
I have two areas that register routes as shown below:
"Website" area:
context.MapRoute(
"Landing Controllers",
"{controller}/{action}",
new { controller = "Home", action = "Index" }
);
"Mobile" area:
context.MapRoute(
"Mobile Defaults",
"{controller}/{action}",
new { controller = "MobileHome", action = "Index" },
new { controller = "MobileHome", action = "Index" }
);
By default, one or the other of these routes would be consistently taken when trying to go to the root URL /. But suppose we decorated our controller actions with a custom AuthorizeAttribute, where the OnAuthorization method is overridden to redirect the user to the correct controller when appropriate, as below. (Idea taken from a great blog post.)
public class MobileRedirectAttribute : AuthorizeAttribute
{
public override void OnAuthorization(AuthorizationContext filterContext)
{
var result = // Logic to generate the ActionResult that conditionally
// takes us to the other route goes here.
filterContext.Result = result;
}
}
I've tried using a new RedirectResult and RedirectToRouteResult, neither of which work as I'd like because of the routing conflict. Is there a way to set AuthorizationContext.Result to a value that would take us to the action that we're not currently executing? (As a last resort, I can just prefix the mobile route with some sort of namespacing variable, but I'd like to avoid going down that road just yet.)
My question can probably also be summarized by having a look at Wikipedia's desktop/mobile routing. Their two sites, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page also share identical routes, but, depending on which mode you're in, return very different results.
Would it be possible to set up Wikipedia's routing in an MVC project where each environment (mobile/desktop) is registered in its own area?
A colleague led me to a promising solution using a custom IRouteConstraint.
public class HelloWorldConstraint : IRouteConstraint
{
public bool Match(HttpContextBase httpContext, Route route,
string parameterName, RouteValueDictionary values,
RouteDirection routeDirection)
{
// Determine whether to accept the route for this request.
var browser = BrowserDetector.Parse(httpContext.Request.UserAgent);
if (browser == BrowserPlatform.Mobile)
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
And my route declaration now looks like the below, where the route constraint is attached to a route parameter chosen at random.
context.MapRouteLowercase(
"Mobile Defaults",
"{controller}/{action}",
new { controller = "MobileHome", action = "Index" },
// In this case, it's not so much necessary to attach the constraint to
// a particular route parameter as it is important to be able to inspect
// the HttpContextBase provided by the IRouteConstraint.
new {
controller = new HelloWorldConstraint()
}
);
Not with standard MVC Routing. You can probably do with attribute routing, available in either MVC 5 or via the nuget package, AttributeRouting.
I'm converting from the WCF Web API to the new ASP.NET MVC 4 Web API. I have a UsersController, and I want to have a method named Authenticate. I see examples of how to do GetAll, GetOne, Post, and Delete, however what if I want to add extra methods into these services? For instance, my UsersService should have a method called Authenticate where they pass in a username and password, however it doesn't work.
public class UsersController : BaseApiController
{
public string GetAll()
{
return "getall!";
}
public string Get(int id)
{
return "get 1! " + id;
}
public User GetAuthenticate(string userName, string password, string applicationName)
{
LogWriter.Write(String.Format("Received authenticate request for username {0} and password {1} and application {2}",
userName, password, applicationName));
//check if valid leapfrog login.
var decodedUsername = userName.Replace("%40", "#");
var encodedPassword = password.Length > 0 ? Utility.HashString(password) : String.Empty;
var leapFrogUsers = LeapFrogUserData.FindAll(decodedUsername, encodedPassword);
if (leapFrogUsers.Count > 0)
{
return new User
{
Id = (uint)leapFrogUsers[0].Id,
Guid = leapFrogUsers[0].Guid
};
}
else
throw new HttpResponseException("Invalid login credentials");
}
}
I can browse to myapi/api/users/ and it will call GetAll and I can browse to myapi/api/users/1 and it will call Get, however if I call myapi/api/users/authenticate?username={0}&password={1} then it will call Get (NOT Authenticate) and error:
The parameters dictionary contains a null entry for parameter 'id' of non-nullable type 'System.Int32' for method 'System.String Get(Int32)' in 'Navtrak.Services.WCF.NavtrakAPI.Controllers.UsersController'. An optional parameter must be a reference type, a nullable type, or be declared as an optional parameter.
How can I call custom method names such as Authenticate?
By default the route configuration follows RESTFul conventions meaning that it will accept only the Get, Post, Put and Delete action names (look at the route in global.asax => by default it doesn't allow you to specify any action name => it uses the HTTP verb to dispatch). So when you send a GET request to /api/users/authenticate you are basically calling the Get(int id) action and passing id=authenticate which obviously crashes because your Get action expects an integer.
If you want to have different action names than the standard ones you could modify your route definition in global.asax:
Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{action}/{id}",
defaults: new { action = "get", id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
Now you can navigate to /api/users/getauthenticate to authenticate the user.
This is the best method I have come up with so far to incorporate extra GET methods while supporting the normal REST methods as well. Add the following routes to your WebApiConfig:
routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApiWithId", "Api/{controller}/{id}", new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }, new { id = #"\d+" });
routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApiWithAction", "Api/{controller}/{action}");
routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApiGet", "Api/{controller}", new { action = "Get" }, new { httpMethod = new HttpMethodConstraint(HttpMethod.Get) });
routes.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApiPost", "Api/{controller}", new {action = "Post"}, new {httpMethod = new HttpMethodConstraint(HttpMethod.Post)});
I verified this solution with the test class below. I was able to successfully hit each method in my controller below:
public class TestController : ApiController
{
public string Get()
{
return string.Empty;
}
public string Get(int id)
{
return string.Empty;
}
public string GetAll()
{
return string.Empty;
}
public void Post([FromBody]string value)
{
}
public void Put(int id, [FromBody]string value)
{
}
public void Delete(int id)
{
}
}
I verified that it supports the following requests:
GET /Test
GET /Test/1
GET /Test/GetAll
POST /Test
PUT /Test/1
DELETE /Test/1
Note That if your extra GET actions do not begin with 'Get' you may want to add an HttpGet attribute to the method.
I am days into the MVC4 world.
For what its worth, I have a SitesAPIController, and I needed a custom method, that could be called like:
http://localhost:9000/api/SitesAPI/Disposition/0
With different values for the last parameter to get record with different dispositions.
What Finally worked for me was:
The method in the SitesAPIController:
// GET api/SitesAPI/Disposition/1
[ActionName("Disposition")]
[HttpGet]
public Site Disposition(int disposition)
{
Site site = db.Sites.Where(s => s.Disposition == disposition).First();
return site;
}
And this in the WebApiConfig.cs
// this was already there
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
// this i added
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "Action",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{action}/{disposition}"
);
For as long as I was naming the {disposition} as {id} i was encountering:
{
"Message": "No HTTP resource was found that matches the request URI 'http://localhost:9000/api/SitesAPI/Disposition/0'.",
"MessageDetail": "No action was found on the controller 'SitesAPI' that matches the request."
}
When I renamed it to {disposition} it started working. So apparently the parameter name is matched with the value in the placeholder.
Feel free to edit this answer to make it more accurate/explanatory.
Web Api by default expects URL in the form of api/{controller}/{id}, to override this default routing. you can set routing with any of below two ways.
First option:
Add below route registration in WebApiConfig.cs
config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "CustomApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{action}/{id}",
defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional }
);
Decorate your action method with HttpGet and parameters as below
[HttpGet]
public HttpResponseMessage ReadMyData(string param1,
string param2, string param3)
{
// your code here
}
for calling above method url will be like below
http://localhost:[yourport]/api/MyData/ReadMyData?param1=value1¶m2=value2¶m3=value3
Second option
Add route prefix to Controller class and Decorate your action method with HttpGet as below.
In this case no need change any WebApiConfig.cs. It can have default routing.
[RoutePrefix("api/{controller}/{action}")]
public class MyDataController : ApiController
{
[HttpGet]
public HttpResponseMessage ReadMyData(string param1,
string param2, string param3)
{
// your code here
}
}
for calling above method url will be like below
http://localhost:[yourport]/api/MyData/ReadMyData?param1=value1¶m2=value2¶m3=value3
In case you're using ASP.NET 5 with ASP.NET MVC 6, most of these answers simply won't work because you'll normally let MVC create the appropriate route collection for you (using the default RESTful conventions), meaning that you won't find any Routes.MapRoute() call to edit at will.
The ConfigureServices() method invoked by the Startup.cs file will register MVC with the Dependency Injection framework built into ASP.NET 5: that way, when you call ApplicationBuilder.UseMvc() later in that class, the MVC framework will automatically add these default routes to your app. We can take a look of what happens behind the hood by looking at the UseMvc() method implementation within the framework source code:
public static IApplicationBuilder UseMvc(
[NotNull] this IApplicationBuilder app,
[NotNull] Action<IRouteBuilder> configureRoutes)
{
// Verify if AddMvc was done before calling UseMvc
// We use the MvcMarkerService to make sure if all the services were added.
MvcServicesHelper.ThrowIfMvcNotRegistered(app.ApplicationServices);
var routes = new RouteBuilder
{
DefaultHandler = new MvcRouteHandler(),
ServiceProvider = app.ApplicationServices
};
configureRoutes(routes);
// Adding the attribute route comes after running the user-code because
// we want to respect any changes to the DefaultHandler.
routes.Routes.Insert(0, AttributeRouting.CreateAttributeMegaRoute(
routes.DefaultHandler,
app.ApplicationServices));
return app.UseRouter(routes.Build());
}
The good thing about this is that the framework now handles all the hard work, iterating through all the Controller's Actions and setting up their default routes, thus saving you some redundant work.
The bad thing is, there's little or no documentation about how you could add your own routes. Luckily enough, you can easily do that by using either a Convention-Based and/or an Attribute-Based approach (aka Attribute Routing).
Convention-Based
In your Startup.cs class, replace this:
app.UseMvc();
with this:
app.UseMvc(routes =>
{
// Route Sample A
routes.MapRoute(
name: "RouteSampleA",
template: "MyOwnGet",
defaults: new { controller = "Items", action = "Get" }
);
// Route Sample B
routes.MapRoute(
name: "RouteSampleB",
template: "MyOwnPost",
defaults: new { controller = "Items", action = "Post" }
);
});
Attribute-Based
A great thing about MVC6 is that you can also define routes on a per-controller basis by decorating either the Controller class and/or the Action methods with the appropriate RouteAttribute and/or HttpGet / HttpPost template parameters, such as the following:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Microsoft.AspNet.Mvc;
namespace MyNamespace.Controllers
{
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class ItemsController : Controller
{
// GET: api/items
[HttpGet()]
public IEnumerable<string> Get()
{
return GetLatestItems();
}
// GET: api/items/5
[HttpGet("{num}")]
public IEnumerable<string> Get(int num)
{
return GetLatestItems(5);
}
// GET: api/items/GetLatestItems
[HttpGet("GetLatestItems")]
public IEnumerable<string> GetLatestItems()
{
return GetLatestItems(5);
}
// GET api/items/GetLatestItems/5
[HttpGet("GetLatestItems/{num}")]
public IEnumerable<string> GetLatestItems(int num)
{
return new string[] { "test", "test2" };
}
// POST: /api/items/PostSomething
[HttpPost("PostSomething")]
public IActionResult Post([FromBody]string someData)
{
return Content("OK, got it!");
}
}
}
This controller will handle the following requests:
[GET] api/items
[GET] api/items/5
[GET] api/items/GetLatestItems
[GET] api/items/GetLatestItems/5
[POST] api/items/PostSomething
Also notice that if you use the two approaches togheter, Attribute-based routes (when defined) would override Convention-based ones, and both of them would override the default routes defined by UseMvc().
For more info, you can also read the following post on my blog.
See this article for a longer discussion of named actions. It also shows that you can use the [HttpGet] attribute instead of prefixing the action name with "get".
http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/web-api-routing-and-actions/routing-in-aspnet-web-api
Web APi 2 and later versions support a new type of routing, called attribute routing. As the name implies, attribute routing uses attributes to define routes. Attribute routing gives you more control over the URIs in your web API. For example, you can easily create URIs that describe hierarchies of resources.
For example:
[Route("customers/{customerId}/orders")]
public IEnumerable<Order> GetOrdersByCustomer(int customerId) { ... }
Will perfect and you don't need any extra code for example in WebApiConfig.cs.
Just you have to be sure web api routing is enabled or not in WebApiConfig.cs , if not you can activate like below:
// Web API routes
config.MapHttpAttributeRoutes();
You don't have to do something more or change something in WebApiConfig.cs. For more details you can have a look this article.
Just modify your WebAPIConfig.cs as bellow
Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi",
routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{action}/{id}",
defaults: new { action = "get", id = RouteParameter.Optional });
Then implement your API as bellow
// GET: api/Controller_Name/Show/1
[ActionName("Show")]
[HttpGet]
public EventPlanner Id(int id){}