Develop Reference

Add property to all responses in asp.net core

I have an API with multiple endpoints. I'd like to add a property to all endpoint responses, without adding it to each endpoint response model individually.
Ex:
public class MyClass
{
public string MyProperty { get; set; } = "Hello";
}
public class MyOtherClass
{
public string MyOtherProperty { get; set; } = "World";
}
public class MyController : ControllerBase
{
[HttpPost]
public async Task<ActionResult<MyClass>> EndpointOne(POSTData data)
{
// implementation omitted
}
[HttpPost]
public async Task<ActionResult<MyOtherClass>> EndpointTwo(POSTOtherData otherData)
{
// implementation omitted
}
}
Calling either endpoint returns a JSON representation of MyClass or MyOtherClass as appropriate - i.e.
{ "MyProperty":"Hello" } or { "MyOtherProperty":"World" }
I want to add a property, say a string ApiName, to all endpoints in the API, so that the result of the above code would be either (as appropriate)
{ "MyProperty":"Hello", "ApiName":"My awesome API" }
or
{ "MyOtherProperty":"World", "ApiName":"My awesome API" }
Is there a way to hook into the JSON-stringified result just before returning and add a top-level property like that? If so, I presume I'd have to wire it up in startup.cs, so I've been looking at app.UseEndpoints(...) methods, but haven't found anything that's worked so far. Either it's not added the property, or it's replaced the original result with the new property.
Thanks in advance!

Use Newtonsoft.Json in your net web api
Register a custom contract resolver in Startup.cs:
builder.Services.AddControllers()
.AddNewtonsoftJson(options => options.SerializerSettings.ContractResolver = CustomContractResolver.Instance);
The implementation:
public class CustomContractResolver : DefaultContractResolver {
public static CustomContractResolver Instance { get; } = new CustomContractResolver();
protected override IList<JsonProperty> CreateProperties(Type type, MemberSerialization memberSerialization)
{
var properties = base.CreateProperties(type, memberSerialization);
// add new property
...
properties.Add(newProp);
return properties;
}}
See more Json.net Add property to every class containing of a certain type

You can add a base class with the shared property. Should work for both XML and JSON.
public class MyApiClass
{
public string ApiName => "MyAwesomeApi";
}
public class MyClass : MyApiClass
{
public string MyProperty { get; set; } = "Hello";
}
public class MyOtherClass : MyApiClass
{
public string MyOtherProperty { get; set; } = "World";
}
public class MyController : ControllerBase
{
[HttpPost]
public async Task<ActionResult<MyClass>> EndpointOne(POSTData data)
{
// implementation omitted
}
[HttpPost]
public async Task<ActionResult<MyOtherClass>> EndpointTwo(POSTOtherData otherData)
{
// implementation omitted
}
}

My 0.02 cents says to implement an abstract base class.
Abstract class inheritance look similar to a standard inheritance.
public class MyClass:MyAbstractClass
{
[JsonPropertyName("Class Property")]
public string MyProperty { get; set; } = "Hello";
}
public class MyOtherClass:MyAbstractClass
{
[JsonPropertyName("Class Property")]
public string MyOtherProperty { get; set; } = "World";
}
However the abstract class will allow you to implement additional features in the event you need them in the future.
public abstract class MyAbstractClass{
[JsonPropertyName("API Name")]
public string ApiName{get;set;}="My Aweomse API";
//Just a thought if you want to keep track of the end point names
//while keeping your object names the same
[JsonIgnore(Condition = JsonIgnoreCondition.Always)]
public string EndPointName{
get{
return get_endpoint_name();
}}
private string get_endpoint_name(){
return this.GetType().Name;
}
//May as well make it easy to grab the JSON
[JsonIgnore(Condition = JsonIgnoreCondition.Always)]
public string As_JSON{
get {
return to_json();
}}
private string to_json(){
object _myObject = this;
string _out;
JsonSerializerOptions options =
new JsonSerializerOptions {
WriteIndented = true };
_out =
JsonSerializer.Serialize(_myObject, options);
return _out;
}
}
Probably should have implemented a generic return object, then you could just loop through the task results. I suppose you still can if you have the task return only the JSON string.
public static void run(){
Task<MyClass> _t0 = task0();
Task<MyOtherClass> _t1 = task1();
Task[] _tasks = new Task[]{_t0,_t1};
Task.WhenAll(_tasks).Wait();
Console.WriteLine(""
+$"{_t1.Result.ApiName}:\n"
+$"End Point: {_t1.Result.EndPointName}:\n"
+$"JSON:\n{_t1.Result.As_JSON}");
Console.WriteLine(""
+$"{_t0.Result.ApiName}:\n"
+$"End Point: {_t0.Result.EndPointName}:\n"
+$"JSON:\n{_t0.Result.As_JSON}");
}
private static Task<MyClass> task0(){
return Task.Run(()=>{
Console.WriteLine("Task 0 Doing Something");
return new MyClass();
});
}
private static Task<MyOtherClass> task1(){
return Task.Run(()=>{
Console.WriteLine("Task 1 Doing Something");
return new MyOtherClass();
});
}
And of course the aweosome...awesome:-) results:
Another thought is that you could implement your two different tasks as abstract methods, but that's a different conversation all together.

In addition to all of the great answers, I prefer to use Action Filter and ExpandoObject.
In Program File you should add your custom action Filter.
builder.Services.AddControllers(opt =>
{
opt.Filters.Add<ResponseHandler>();
});
and ResponseHandler acts like below:
public class ResponseHandler : IActionFilter
{
public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
{
IDictionary<string, object> expando = new ExpandoObject();
foreach (var propertyInfo in (context.Result as ObjectResult).Value.GetType().GetProperties())
{
var currentValue = propertyInfo.GetValue((context.Result as ObjectResult).Value);
expando.Add(propertyInfo.Name, currentValue);
}
dynamic result = expando as ExpandoObject;
result.ApiName = context.ActionDescriptor.RouteValues["action"].ToString();
context.Result = new ObjectResult(result);
}
public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
{
}
}

Circular reference in dependency injection

I am creating a RESTful api in Net 5, according to the instructions I must create repositories and services that make use of them. The logic must be in the services.
The Services I have are:
SubGroupService
GroupsService
The problem I have is that I generated a circular reference since in GroupsService I need a method of SubGroupsService and SubGroupsService i need a method of GroupsService .
Injecting the GroupsService service into SubGroupsService there is no problem, but injecting SubGroupsService into GroupsService generates the circular reference.
Please can you tell me how to solve this type of problem, since I don't have much experience with dependency injection.
SubGroupService
public class SubGroupService: ISubGroupService
{
private readonly ISubGroupRepository _SubGroupRepository;
private readonly IGroupService _GroupService;
public SubGroupService(
ISubGroupRepository SubGroupRepository,
IGroupService GroupService
{
_SubGroupRepository = SubGroupRepository;
_GroupService = GroupService;
}
public async Task InsertSubGroupService(Subgroup subgroup)
{
var group = await _GroupService.GetGroupService(subgroup.idgroup);
if (group != null)
{
await _SubGroupRepository.InsertSubGroupRepository(subgroup);
}
else
{
throw new BusinessException("This group not exists");
}
}
public async Task<Subgroups> GetSubGroupService(int idgroup)
{
return await _SubGroupRepository.GetSubGroupRepository(idgroup);
}
}
Group Service
public class GroupService : IGroupService
{
private readonly ISubGroupService _SubGroupService;
private readonly IGroupRepository _GroupRepository;
public GroupService(
ISubGroupService SubGroupService,
IGroupRepository GroupRepository)
{
_SubGroupService = SubGroupService;
_GroupRepository = GroupRepository;
}
public async Task<bool> DeleteGroupService(int Idgroup)
{
var existsSubGroup = await _SubGroupRepository(Idgroup);
if(existsSubGroup == null)
{
return await _GroupRepository.DeleteGroupRepository(Idgroup);
}
}
public async Task<Groups> GetGroupService(int Idgroup)
{
return await _GroupRepository.GetGroupRepository(Idgroup);
}
}
Interfaces:
public interface IGroupService
{
Task<Groups> GetGroupsService(int Idgroup);
Task<bool> DeleteGroupService(int Idgroup);
}
public interface ISubGroupService
{
Task<Subgroups> GetSubGroupService(int idsubgrupo);
Task InsertSubgroupService(Subgroup subgroup);
}

You can't use constructor injection in that case. You can switch to property injection:
public class SubGroupService: ISubGroupService
{
private readonly ISubGroupRepository _SubGroupRepository;
public IGroupService GroupService { get; set; }
public SubGroupService(
ISubGroupRepository SubGroupRepository)
{
_SubGroupRepository = SubGroupRepository;
}
// methods of the class
}
public class GroupService : IGroupService
{
public ISubGroupService SubGroupService {get; set;}
private readonly IGroupRepository _GroupRepository;
public GroupService(
IGroupRepository GroupRepository)
{
_GroupRepository = GroupRepository;
}
// methods of the class
}
You'll have to create the objects like this:
IGroupRepository groupRepository = new GroupRepository();
IGroupService groupService = new GroupService(groupRepository);
ISubGroupService subGroupService = new SubGroupService(groupRepository);
groupService.SubGroupSerivce = subGroupService;
subGroupService.GroupService = groupService;
Of course, creation of the objects is now much more complicated. You might put the creation into a facotry method to avoid errors:
public (IGroupService,ISubGroupService) CreateGroupAndSubGroupService()
{
// code from above
}
And it is also advisable to add null checks, because someone might create the objects without initializing the service correctly.

Moq an object in a static class

I can't get Moq to mock an object that gets created in a static method.
Here is my moq and code
code:
public interface IConfigHelper
{
string GetConfiguration(string sectionName, string elementName);
}
public class ConfigHelper : IConfigHelper
{
public ConfigHelper() { }
public virtual string GetConfiguration(string sectionName, string elementName)
{
string retValue = String.Empty;
//Does things to get configuration and return a value
return retValue;
}
}
public class myRealClass
{
public myRealClass(){}
public string myworkingMethod()
{
var retValue = String.Empty;
retValue = utilSvc.GetConfigurationValue();
return retValue;
}
}
public static class utilSvc
{
public static string GetConfigurationValue()
{
ConfigHelper configUtil = new ConfigHelper(); //NOT BEING MOCKED
return configUtil.GetConfiguration("sectionName/sectionElement", "ClinicalSystem");
}
}
the Test using Moq
[TestFixture(TestName = "Tests")]
public class Tests
{
private Mock<IConfigHelper> configHelperMOCK;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
configHelperMOCK = new Mock<IConfigHelper>();
}
[Test]
public void serviceIsBPManagementForValidSource()
{
//Arrange
string sectionName = "sectionName/sectionElement";
string clinicalElementName = "ClinicalSystem";
string clinicalElementValue = "Zedmed";
configHelperMOCK.Setup(s => s.GetConfiguration(sectionName, clinicalElementName)).Returns(clinicalElementValue);
//act
// the call to myRealClass
//assert
// test assertions
}
}
The issue that I am having is with this line:
ConfigHelper configUtil = new ConfigHelper(); //NOT BEING MOCKED
I cannot get the moq to Mock the object.
I do not want the code to read the config file. I wish to moq away this instance of ConfigHelper

You can't wrap the static class/method but you can redirect it
public static class UtilSvc
{
static UtilSvc()
{
CreatorFunc = () => new ConfigHelper();
}
public static Func<IConfigHelper> CreatorFunc { get; set; }
public static string GetConfigurationValue()
{
var configUtil = CreatorFunc();
return configUtil.GetConfiguration("sectionName/sectionElement",
"ClinicalSystem");
}
}
and then in the test
//...
private Mock<IConfigHelper> configHelperMOCK;
[SetUp]
public void Setup()
{
configHelperMOCK = new Mock<IConfigHelper>();
UtilService.CreatorFunc = () => configHelperMOCK.Object;
}
//...

You cannot mock static class. I would rather propose to inject that IConfigHelper into the myRealClass. That is the usual way how to decouple dependencies and use DI.
public class myRealClass
{
private IConfigHelper _configHelper;
public myRealClass(IConfigHelper configHelper)
{
_configHelper = configHelper;
}
public string myworkingMethod()
{
var retValue = String.Empty;
retValue = _configHelper.GetConfigurationValue();
return retValue;
}
}

Avoid coupling your code to static classes, which in most cases cause you code be to difficult to maintain and test.
Follow the Explicit Dependencies Principle
Methods and classes should explicitly require (typically through
method parameters or constructor parameters) any collaborating objects
they need in order to function correctly.
Give the article a read. It is short and very informative.
If you want to keep the static class then you wrap the static class behind an abstraction.
public interface IUtilSvc {
string GetConfigurationValue();
}
public class utilSvcWrapper : IUtilSvc {
public string GetConfigurationValue() {
return utilSvc.GetConfigurationValue(); //Calling static service
}
}
Or another option is that utlSvc does not have to be static if can be injected into dependent classes
public class utilSvc : IUtilScv {
private readonly IConfigHelper configUtil;
public utilSvc(IConfigHelper configHelper) {
configUtil = configHelper;
}
public string GetConfigurationValue() {
return configUtil.GetConfiguration("sectionName/sectionElement", "ClinicalSystem");
}
}
Inject the IUtilScv into the dependent class so that it is no longer dependent on static class.
public class myRealClass {
private readonly IUtilScv utilSvc;
//Explicit dependency inject via constructor
public myRealClass(IUtilScv utilSvc) {
this.utilSvc = utilSvc;
}
public string myworkingMethod() {
var retValue = utilSvc.GetConfiguration();
return retValue;
}
}
In that case you don't even need IConfigHelper when testing as it has also been abstracted away. And you only need to mock the dependencies needed for the test.
[TestFixture(TestName = "Tests")]
public class Tests {
private Mock<IUtilScv> utilScvMOCK;
[SetUp]
public void Setup() {
utilScvMOCK = new Mock<IUtilScv>();
}
[Test]
public void serviceIsBPManagementForValidSource() {
//Arrange
var expectedClinicalElementValue = "Zedmed";
utilScvMOCK
.Setup(s => s.GetConfiguration())
.Returns(expectedClinicalElementValue)
.Verifiable();
var sut = new myRealClass(utilScvMOCK.Object);
//Act
var actualClinicalElementValue = sut.myworkingMethod();
//Assert
configHelperMOCK.Verify();
Assert.AreEqual(expectedClinicalElementValue, actualClinicalElementValue);
}
}

Refactoring with generics

Let's assume, that we have the following classes:
class ViewModelA
{
private ProxyA proxy;
public ViewModelA(DataA data)
{
proxy = new ProxyA(data);
}
public void DoSth()
{
proxy.DoSth();
}
public ProxyA Proxy
{
get
{
return proxy;
}
}
}
class ViewModelB
{
private ProxyB proxy;
public ViewModelB(DataB data)
{
proxy = new ProxyB(data);
}
public void DoSth()
{
proxy.DoSth();
}
public ProxyB Proxy
{
get
{
return proxy;
}
}
}
...
All of these classes are actually a lot longer, but also similar in the same degree.
Is there a (nice) way of converting them all to one generic class? The core problem is the line:
proxy = new ProxyA(data);
because C# disallows calling parametrized ctors on generic class specializations (in terms of T).

You can solve this by passing in a preconstructed ProxyA or ProxyB object.
One way of doing it is through inheritance, constructing the object just before calling the base constructor:
class ViewModel<TProxy, TData>
{
private TProxy proxy;
public ViewModel(TProxy proxy)
{
this.proxy = proxy;
}
public void DoSth()
{
proxy.DoSth();
}
public TProxy Proxy
{
get
{
return proxy;
}
}
}
class ViewModelA : ViewModel<ProxyA, DataA>
{
public ViewModelA(DataA data) : base(new ProxyA(data))
{
}
}
I've assumed here that DataA and DataB occurs somewhere in method signatures that you have omitted. If not, you can leave out the TData generic type parameter.
Reflection is always an option, but it is best avoided if a solution like this is acceptable. If you want to avoid having to create a new type for a different TProxy and TData, you could add a second constructor instead:
ViewModel(TData data, Func<TData, TProxy> factory) : this(factory(data))
{
}
Used as such:
new ViewModel<ProxyA, DataA>(new DataA(), data => new ProxyA(data));
I'm not sure if that makes sense to do in your application however.

If you know the type (and using generics you would), you can call Activator.CreateInstance to create an instance of that type using any constructor you want.
proxy = Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(TProxy), new[]{data});
While this will solve your direct problem, you could also think about a design where ViewModelA does not know about DataA and instead gets passed a ProxyA. That would solve all your problems without fancy reflection.

As you noted, it is not possible to do this with parameterised constructors, without using reflection. However, one possible variation on this theme:
public interface IDataProxy<T>
{
T Data { get; set; }
}
public class ViewModel<TProxy, TData>
where TProxy : class, new, IDataProxy<TData>
{
public TProxy Proxy { get; private set; }
public ViewModel(TData data)
{
Proxy = new TProxy { Data = data };
}
}

public interface IProxy
{
void DoSth();
}
public class ProxyA : IProxy
{
public ProxyA(DataA dataA)
{
}
public void DoSth()
{ }
}
public class ProxyB : IProxy
{
public ProxyB(DataB dataA)
{
}
public void DoSth()
{
}
}
public class ViewModel<T> where T : IProxy
{
private readonly IProxy _proxy;
public ViewModel(T proxy)
{
_proxy = proxy;
}
public void DoSth()
{
_proxy.DoSth();
}
}
var vm = new ViewModel<ProxyA>(new ProxyA(new DataA()));
vm.DoSth();

public interface IDoSomething
{
void DoSth();
}
class ViewModel<T> where T : IDoSomething
{
private T proxy;
public ViewModel()
{
proxy = Activator.CreateInstance<T>();
}
//public ViewModel(T data)
//{
// proxy = data;
//}
public void DoSth()
{
proxy.DoSth();
}
public T Proxy
{
get
{
return proxy;
}
}
}

How to change the class of an object dynamically in C#?

Suppose I have a base class named Visitor, and it has 2 subclass Subscriber and NonSubscriber.
At first a visitor is start off from a NonSubscriber, i.e.
NonSubscriber mary = new NonSubscriber();
Then later on this "mary" subscribed to some services, and I want to change the type of "mary" to Subscriber.
What is the conventional way to do that?

can't do that. sorry. C# is not a dynamic language.

You will have to create a new mary = new Subscriber(); and copy all relevant properties.
But a better approach might be to model it differently: Give Visitor a list of subscriptions. An empty list means a NonSubscriber.

You cant do this type of conversion.
What you should do is treat mary as a visitor, and when time arrives, create a new instance of "subscriber":
Visitor mary = new NonSubscriber();
// Do some Visitor operations
...
// Now mary is a Subscriber
mary = new Subscriber();

You could use the GOF design patterns State or Strategy to model such an behaviour. Using these patterns, it seems during runtime as if the class of the objects has been changed.

It seems that you have some design problems. I think that it would be better to redesign your code like:
class Visitor
{
private bool isSubscriber = false;
public bool IsSubscriber
{
get { return isSubscriber; }
}
public void Subscribe()
{
// do some subscribing stuff
isSubscriber = true;
}
public void Unsubscribe()
{
// do some unsubscribing stuff
isSubscriber = false;
}
}

You cannot change the type of a variable at runtime. You need to create a new instance.
mary = new Subscriber();

Create a Subscriber constructor that takes a NonSubscriber object as a parameter, or create a method on the NonSubscriber object that returns a Subscriber to save you having to writer the mappping code in multiple places.

It seems like you are encoding information incorrectly into your class hierarchy. It would make more sense to use a different pattern than sub classing here. For example, use only one class (visitor, or perhaps you could name it potential subscriber, whatever seems appropriate) and encode information on the services the object is subscribed to, moving the dynamically changing behavior behind a "Strategy" pattern or some such. There's very little detail in your example, but one thing you could do in C# is to make a "subscriber" property which would change the behavior of the object when the state of the property was changed.
Here's a contrived somewhat related example:
class Price
{
private int priceInCents;
private bool displayCents;
private Func<string> displayFunction;
public Price(int dollars, int cents)
{
priceInCents = dollars*100 + cents;
DisplayCents = true;
}
public bool DisplayCents
{
get { return displayCents; }
set
{
displayCents = value;
if (displayCents)
{
this.displayFunction = () => String.Format("{0}.{1}", priceInCents / 100, priceInCents % 100);
}
else
{
this.displayFunction = () => (priceInCents / 100).ToString();
}
}
}
public string ToString()
{
return this.displayFunction();
}
}

public class User
{
public Subscription Subscription { get; set; }
public void HandleSubscription()
{
Subscription.Method();
}
}
public abstract class SubscriptionType
{
public abstract void Method();
}
public class NoSubscription : SubscriptionType
{
public override void Method()
{
// Do stuff for non subscribers
}
}
public class ServiceSubscription : SubscriptionType
{
public override void Method()
{
// Do stuff for service subscribers
}
}
public class Service2Subscription : SubscriptionType
{
public override void Method()
{
// Do stuff for service2 subscribers
}
}
Think the code explains my answer :)

Adding to the other answers and your comment, you indeed can use the state pattern for your purpose, it would go something like this:
public class MyProgram
{
public void Run()
{
Visitor v = new Visitor("Mary");
Debug.Assert(v.SubscriptionLinkText == "Join now");
v.IsSubscribed = true;
Debug.Assert(v.SubscriptionLinkText == "Today's special");
v.IsSubscribed = false;
Debug.Assert(v.SubscriptionLinkText == "Join now");
}
}
public class Visitor
{
public string Name { get; set; }
private bool _isSubscribed;
public bool IsSubscribed
{
get { return this._isSubscribed; }
set
{
if (value != this._isSubscribed)
{
this._isSubscribed = value;
this.OnSubscriptionChanged();
}
}
}
private SubscriptionBase _subscription;
public string SubscriptionLinkText
{
get { return this._subscription.LinkText; }
}
public Visitor(string name)
{
this.Name = name;
this._isSubscribed = false;
this.OnSubscriptionChanged();
}
private void OnSubscriptionChanged()
{
// Consider also defining an event and raising it here
this._subscription =
SubscriptionBase.GetSubscription(this.IsSubscribed);
}
}
abstract public class SubscriptionBase
{
// Factory method to get instance
static public SubscriptionBase GetSubscription(bool isSubscribed)
{
return isSubscribed ?
new Subscription() as SubscriptionBase
: new NoSubscription() as SubscriptionBase;
}
abstract public string LinkText { get; }
}
public class Subscription : SubscriptionBase
{
public override string LinkText
{
get { return "Today's Special"; }
}
}
public class NoSubscription : SubscriptionBase
{
public override string LinkText
{
get { return "Join now"; }
}
}