Develop Reference

Executing AddMembershipRule on SMS_Collection through REST Admin Service

We're trying to use the REST API of Administration Service to manage the Configuration Manager
(What is the administration service in Configuration Manager?)
We have successfully queried entities of different types and executed some custom static methods (i.e. MoveMembers Method on SMS_ObjectContainerItem). It's all mostly blind shots as there is barely any documentation, but those basic functionalities seem to work fine.
Now we have hit the wall, trying to add collection rules to a SMS_Collection (existing or new). This was normally done calling the AddMembershipRule on the instance itself, that was previously fetched by e.g. WqlConnectionManager or some other proxy. However, this is clearly a no-go on a plain object fetched from the REST service.
We have tried to use the wmi OData service (by a generated proxy) as it clearly offers similar functionality, but this ends up with a "Not supported exception":
var savedCollection = Proxy.SMS_Collection.Where(c => c.CollectionID == result.CollectionID).FirstOrDefault();
savedCollection.AddMembershipRule(inclusionRule);
Proxy.UpdateObject(savedCollection);
Proxy.SaveChanges(); //EXCEPTION
I have tried running POST request in numerous ways, using urls like:
SMS_Collection.AddMembershipRule?CollectionID=DV000037 -> 404
SMS_Collection/DV000037/AddMembershipRule -> 404
SMS_Collection.DV000037.AddMembershipRule -> 404
SMS_Collection/DV000037.AddMembershipRule -> treated it as post to SMS_Collection/DV000037, and therefore triggers an update
or just
SMS_Collection.AddMembershipRule with collectionID as param
As for the request body I've used (or just the AddCollectionMembershipRuleRequestRule):
public class AddCollectionMembershipRuleRequest
{
public AddCollectionMembershipRuleRequestRule CollectionRule { get; set; }
}
public class AddCollectionMembershipRuleRequestRule
{
public string RuleName { get; set; }
public string IncludeCollectionID { get; set; }
}
I have also tried to Post an existing or new collection, with CollectionRules prefilled, but this ends up with an exception complaining about IncludeCollectionID not being part of CollectionRule (base class) - looks like validation being too strict and not dealing well with the inheritance.
var collectionRequest = new ECMCollectionCreationRequest()
{
Name = collectionName,
CollectionType = 2,
RefreshType = 4,
LimitToCollectionID = DefaultLimitingCollectionID,
CollectionRules = new List<SMS_CollectionRule>()
{
new SMS_CollectionRuleIncludeCollection()
{
RuleName = "MembershipRule",
IncludeCollectionID = "DV100020"
}
}
};
Stil, no luck with any of those. Do you have any idea if such a scenario (modification of CollectionRules) is even supported with the Rest /OData service? If so, what would be the right way to achieve so?

It looks like this part is simply not supported at the moment. Looking at the code it seems that the service is not interpreting the arguments properly and therefore causing validation issues.
However, the same can be achieved, in a bit less clean and structured way, using ManagementScope and ManagementObject
var scope = new ManagementScope(siteAddress);
scope.Connect();
using (ManagementObject collection = new ManagementObject(scope, new ManagementPath($"SMS_Collection.CollectionID='{collectionID}'"), new ObjectGetOptions()))
{
if (collection == null)
throw new Exception($"Unable to find collection with ID '{collectionID}'");
collection.Get();
using (ManagementBaseObject inParams = collection.GetMethodParameters("AddMembershipRule"))
using (ManagementClass ruleClass = new ManagementClass(scope, new ManagementPath("SMS_CollectionRuleDirect"), new ObjectGetOptions()))
using (ManagementObject rule = ruleClass.CreateInstance())
{
rule["ResourceClassName"] = "SMS_R_System";
rule["ResourceID"] = ecmResourceID;
rule["RuleName"] = machineName;
inParams["collectionRule"] = rule;
collection.InvokeMethod("AddMembershipRule", inParams, null);
}
}
One can add and remove all the other rule types in similar way.
Another alternative is of course to use PowerShell. Sill, I hope that with one of the next iterations of the Administration Service, support of those methods will be added.
Similarly, there seems to be no way to add/remove application or package and import/export them, using the admin services or even in the way mentioned above.

$Rule="{'collectionRule':{`"#odata.type`": `"#AdminService.SMS_CollectionRuleDirect`", `"ResourceClassName`": `"SMS_R_System`", `"ResourceID`": $DeviceID,`"RuleName`": `"$MachineName`"}}"
$RuleCreated = (Invoke-RestMethod -Method Post -Uri "https://$($CMProvider)/AdminService/wmi/SMS_Collection('$CollectionID')/AdminService.AddMembershipRule" -Body $Rule -ContentType 'application/json' -Credential $Cred)

Using Moq the Start() method keeps retuning a null object

I'm having trouble figuring out why I can't test my driver variable, it keeps coming back null with I call Start(). I basically would like to access that variable and test it.
My current test that isn't working:
[TestMethod]
public void Start_Default_IsChrome2()
{
var dummyManager = new Mock<IRemoteDriver>();
var mockDriver = new Mock<IWebDriver>();
dummyManager.Setup(x => x.CreateRemoteWebDriver(new ChromeOptions()))
.Returns(It.IsAny<RemoteWebDriver>());
var session = new SauceSession(dummyManager.Object);
//The Start() keeps returning a null object
var driver = session.Start();
var capabilities = driver.Capabilities;
capabilities.GetCapability("browserName").Should().Be("chrome");
}
Dependency to be mocked
public interface IRemoteDriver
{
IWebDriver CreateRemoteWebDriver(ChromeOptions chromeOptions);
}
Subject Under Test
public SauceSession(IRemoteDriver driverManager)
{
remoteDriverManager = driverManager;
}
public RemoteWebDriver Start()
{
sauceUserName = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("SAUCE_USERNAME", EnvironmentVariableTarget.User);
sauceAccessKey = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("SAUCE_ACCESS_KEY", EnvironmentVariableTarget.User);
sauceOptions = new Dictionary<string, object>
{
["username"] = sauceUserName,
["accessKey"] = sauceAccessKey
};
var chromeOptions = new ChromeOptions
{
BrowserVersion = "latest",
PlatformName = "Windows 10",
UseSpecCompliantProtocol = true
};
chromeOptions.AddAdditionalCapability("sauce:options", sauceOptions, true);
//This keeps returning a null
return (RemoteWebDriver)remoteDriverManager.CreateRemoteWebDriver(chromeOptions);
}
If it helps, the Concrete implementation works just fine and that test looks like this:
[TestMethod]
public void Start_Default_IsChrome()
{
var session = new SauceSession();
var driver = session.Start();
var capabilities = ((RemoteWebDriver)driver).Capabilities;
capabilities.GetCapability("browserName").Should().Be("chrome");
}
Everything else is the same except the object that I set here:
public SauceSession()
{
remoteDriverManager = new ConcreteRemoteWebDriver();
}
class ConcreteRemoteWebDriver : IRemoteDriver
{
public IWebDriver CreateRemoteWebDriver(ChromeOptions chromeOptions)
{
return new RemoteWebDriver(new Uri("https://ondemand.saucelabs.com/wd/hub"),
chromeOptions.ToCapabilities(), TimeSpan.FromSeconds(600));
}
}
Here's the RemoteWebDriver:
public class RemoteWebDriver : IWebDriver, ISearchContext, IDisposable, IJavaScriptExecutor, IFindsById, IFindsByClassName, IFindsByLinkText, IFindsByName, IFindsByTagName, IFindsByXPath, IFindsByPartialLinkText, IFindsByCssSelector, ITakesScreenshot, IHasInputDevices, IHasCapabilities, IHasWebStorage, IHasLocationContext, IHasApplicationCache, IAllowsFileDetection, IHasSessionId, IActionExecutor

You've done your setup improperly.
dummyManager.Setup(x => x.CreateRemoteWebDriver(new ChromeOptions()))
.Returns(It.IsAny<RemoteWebDriver>());
Two things here:
You're matching on precisely an instance of new ChromeOptions(). When determining which object to return, Moq will check if the arguments passed to CreateRemoteWebDriver are the same as the ones provided in the setup. It's unlikely that
new ChromeOptions
{
BrowserVersion = "latest",
PlatformName = "Windows 10",
UseSpecCompliantProtocol = true
};
and
new ChromeOptions()
will evaluate as equal, meaning that this setup won't be matched.
You probably just meant to use It.IsAny<ChromeOptions>(), like this
dummyManager.Setup(x => x.CreateRemoteWebDriver(It.IsAny<ChromeOptions>()))
The second issue is that your return value is explicitly null.
It.IsAny<T>() always returns the default value for T. The It methods are all only used for argument matching within the Setup expression. If you use them outside of a setup expression, you're just going to get the default value of the generic argument, which in this case is a null value. It's a shame that the Moq library doesn't make this improper usage a loud error message. Consequently, you'll need to provide an actual instance of RemoteWebDriver as a return value. (Or if you can decouple the implementation from a particular concrete type, you could just return something that implements IWebDriver.)
That value could be another Mock object, potentially, but it needs to be something you've either created ahead of time, or something that can be created via the Returns callback.
A correct setup might look something like:
var mockDriver = new Mock<RemoteWebDriver>();
dummyManager.Setup(x => x.CreateRemoteWebDriver(It.IsAny<ChromeOptions>()))
.Returns(mockDriver.Object); //This could throw an exception if RemoteWebDriver needs arguments.
A small caveat is that you will actually create a RemoteWebDriver instance as a result. If that has undesirable side effects (such as creating a chrome window), you will want to consider changing your strategy from using a particular concrete type to some interface or abstract class. If you did that, the setup might look something like the below:
var mockDriver = new Mock<IWebDriver>();
dummyManager.Setup(x => x.CreateRemoteWebDriver(It.IsAny<ChromeOptions>()))
.Returns(mockDriver.Object);

Trouble accessing some methods of a dynamic object

I'm writing a utility that allows end users to perform some Selenium tests against my company's web app, so far so good. Here's the issue: I want to allow users to choose the type of selenum.webdriver object they are going to implement, based on whether they have chrome or firefox installed on their system.
so, I initialize a list of objects to let us know what the user has selected
public List<object> BuildBrowserAccess(string browserEngine)
{
OpenQA.Selenium.Chrome.ChromeDriver driverC = null;
OpenQA.Selenium.Firefox.FirefoxDriver driverF = null;
if (browserEngine == "Firefox")
{
driverF = new OpenQA.Selenium.Firefox.FirefoxDriver();
}
else if (browserEngine == "Chrome\t")
{
driverC = new OpenQA.Selenium.Chrome.ChromeDriver();
}
List<object> browserEngines = new List<object>();
browserEngines.Add(driverC);
browserEngines.Add(driverF);
return browserEngines;
}
Then back in the main routine, assign whichever is selected (i.e. not null) to a dynamic object then convert the object to static using "as":
List<object> browserEngines = mainActions.BuildBrowserAccess(browserEngine);
if (browserEngines[0] != null )
{
driver = browserEngines[0];
finDriver = driver as OpenQA.Selenium.Chrome.ChromeDriver;
}
else
{
driver = browserEngines[1];
finDriver = driver as OpenQA.Selenium.Firefox.FirefoxDriver;
}
Even at runtime, the conversion looks successful, and I'm able to use some methods of the FirefoxDriver namespace, but many other methods that work just fine with a statically typed object throw a RuntimeBinderException... I'm just about stumped, and any help is appreciated!

Why not create only one driver variable of type IWebDriver of it doesn't have to be specifically initialized, use var?
And in case you need to check the specific type of driver you could do
if(driver.GetType() == typeof(FirefoxDriver))
{
//do your Firefox stuff
}
else
{
//do another browser stuff
}

Abot Crawler Omit CrawledPage HttpWebRequest/Response

I am using Abot in a way that I have a WPF application which displays a browser control (CefSharp).
The user logs in and whichever possible custom authentication the site is using will work while crawling in the same way as if the user were actually browsing the site.
Thus, when I crawl, I want to use this browser control to make the request and simply return the page data.
Therefore I've implemented my custom PageRequester, complete listing below.
The problem is that with CefSharp, as with other browser controls, it's not possible to get the HttpWebRequest/Response associated with a CrawlPage.
Without setting these two properties, Abot does not proceed the crawl further.
Is there something I can do to circumvent this problem?
Code listing:
using Abot.Core;
using Abot.Poco;
using CefSharp.Wpf;
using System;
using System.Net;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
public class CefPageRequester : IPageRequester
{
private MainWindowDataContext DataContext;
private ChromiumWebBrowser ChromiumWebBrowser;
private CrawlConfiguration CrawlConfig;
private volatile bool _navigationCompleted;
private string _pageSource;
public CefPageRequester(MainWindowDataContext dataContext, ChromiumWebBrowser chromiumWebBrowser, CrawlConfiguration crawlConfig)
{
this.DataContext = dataContext;
this.ChromiumWebBrowser = chromiumWebBrowser;
this.CrawlConfig = crawlConfig;
this.ChromiumWebBrowser.FrameLoadEnd += ChromiumWebBrowser_FrameLoadEnd;
}
public CrawledPage MakeRequest(Uri uri)
{
return this.MakeRequest(uri, cp => new CrawlDecision() { Allow = true });
}
public CrawledPage MakeRequest(Uri uri, Func<CrawledPage, CrawlDecision> shouldDownloadContent)
{
if (uri == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("uri");
CrawledPage crawledPage = new CrawledPage(uri);
try
{
//the browser control is bound to the address of the data context,
//if we set the address directly it breaks for some reason, although it's a two way binding.
this.DataContext.Address = uri.AbsolutePath;
crawledPage.RequestStarted = DateTime.Now;
crawledPage.DownloadContentStarted = crawledPage.RequestStarted;
while (!_navigationCompleted)
Thread.CurrentThread.Join(10);
}
catch (WebException e)
{
crawledPage.WebException = e;
}
catch
{
//bad luck, we should log this.
}
finally
{
//TODO must add these properties!!
//crawledPage.HttpWebRequest = request;
//crawledPage.HttpWebResponse = response;
crawledPage.RequestCompleted = DateTime.Now;
crawledPage.DownloadContentCompleted = crawledPage.RequestCompleted;
if (!String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_pageSource))
crawledPage.Content = this.GetContent("UTF-8", _pageSource);
_navigationCompleted = false;
_pageSource = null;
}
return crawledPage;
}
private void ChromiumWebBrowser_FrameLoadEnd(object sender, CefSharp.FrameLoadEndEventArgs e)
{
if (!e.IsMainFrame)
return;
this.ChromiumWebBrowser.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(
(Action)(() =>
{
_pageSource = this.ChromiumWebBrowser.GetSourceAsync().Result;
_navigationCompleted = true;
}));
}
private PageContent GetContent(string charset, string html)
{
PageContent pageContent = new PageContent();
pageContent.Charset = charset;
pageContent.Encoding = this.GetEncoding(charset);
pageContent.Text = html;
pageContent.Bytes = pageContent.Encoding.GetBytes(html);
return pageContent;
}
private Encoding GetEncoding(string charset)
{
Encoding e = Encoding.UTF8;
if (charset != null)
{
try
{
e = Encoding.GetEncoding(charset);
}
catch { }
}
return e;
}
}
The question can also be phrased as: how to avoid having to create a HttpWebResponse from a stream? Which seems impossible, given MSDN says:
You should never directly create an instance of the HttpWebResponse
class. Instead, use the instance returned by a call to
HttpWebRequest.GetResponse.
I would have to actually post the request to get the response, which is precisely what I want to avoid by having a web browser control.

As you are aware, lots of functionality depends on the HttpWebRequest and HttpWebResponse being set. I've ordered a few options for you off the top of my head...
1) Refactor Abot to use some POCO Abstraction instead of those classes. Then just have an converter that converts the real HttpWebRequest and HttpWebResponse to those POCO types as well as a converter that converts your browser objects response into those POCOs.
2) Create a CustomHttpWebRequest and CustomHttpWebResponse that inherit from the .net classes so you can access/override the public/protected properties which may allow you to manually create an instance that models the request/response that your browser component returns to you. I know this can be tricky but may work (I've never done it so I can't say for sure).
3) [I HATE THIS IDEA. It SHOULD BE YOUR LAST RESORT] Create a real instance of these classes and use reflection to set whatever properties/values need to be set to satisfy all of Abot's usages.
4) [I HATE THIS IDEA EVEN WORSE] Use MS Fakes to create shims/stubs/fakes to the properties and methods of the HttpWebRequest and HttpWebResponse. Then you could configure it to return your values. This tool is usually only used for testing but I believe it can be used for production code if you are desperate, don't care about performance and/or are insane.
I also included the terrible ideas as well to just in case they help you spark some thought. Hope that helps...

"using" keyword in java [duplicate]

Does Java have a using statement that can be used when opening a session in hibernate?
In C# it is something like:
using (var session = new Session())
{
}
So the object goes out of scope and closes automatically.

Java 7 introduced Automatic Resource Block Management which brings this feature to the Java platform. Prior versions of Java didn't have anything resembling using.
As an example, you can use any variable implementing java.lang.AutoCloseable in the following way:
try(ClassImplementingAutoCloseable obj = new ClassImplementingAutoCloseable())
{
...
}
Java's java.io.Closeable interface, implemented by streams, automagically extends AutoCloseable, so you can already use streams in a try block the same way you would use them in a C# using block. This is equivalent to C#'s using.
As of version 5.0, Hibernate Sessions implement AutoCloseable and can be auto-closed in ARM blocks. In previous versions of Hibernate Session did not implement AutoCloseable. So you'll need to be on Hibernate >= 5.0 in order to use this feature.

Before Java 7, there was no such feature in Java (for Java 7 and up see Asaph's answer regarding ARM).
You needed to do it manually and it was a pain:
AwesomeClass hooray = null;
try {
hooray = new AwesomeClass();
// Great code
} finally {
if (hooray!=null) {
hooray.close();
}
}
And that's just the code when neither // Great code nor hooray.close() can throw any exceptions.
If you really only want to limit the scope of a variable, then a simple code block does the job:
{
AwesomeClass hooray = new AwesomeClass();
// Great code
}
But that's probably not what you meant.

Since Java 7 it does: http://blogs.oracle.com/darcy/entry/project_coin_updated_arm_spec
The syntax for the code in the question would be:
try (Session session = new Session())
{
// do stuff
}
Note that Session needs to implement AutoClosable or one of its (many) sub-interfaces.

Technically:
DisposableObject d = null;
try {
d = new DisposableObject();
}
finally {
if (d != null) {
d.Dispose();
}
}

The closest java equivalent is
AwesomeClass hooray = new AwesomeClass();
try{
// Great code
} finally {
hooray.dispose(); // or .close(), etc.
}

As of now, no.
However there is a proposal of ARM for Java 7.

If you're interested in resource management, Project Lombok offers the #Cleanup annotation. Taken directly from their site:
You can use #Cleanup to ensure a given
resource is automatically cleaned up
before the code execution path exits
your current scope. You do this by
annotating any local variable
declaration with the #Cleanup
annotation like so:
#Cleanup InputStream in = new FileInputStream("some/file");
As a
result, at the end of the scope you're
in, in.close() is called. This call is
guaranteed to run by way of a
try/finally construct. Look at the
example below to see how this works.
If the type of object you'd like to
cleanup does not have a close()
method, but some other no-argument
method, you can specify the name of
this method like so:
#Cleanup("dispose") org.eclipse.swt.widgets.CoolBar bar = new CoolBar(parent, 0);
By default, the cleanup method is presumed to be
close(). A cleanup method that takes
argument cannot be called via
#Cleanup.
Vanilla Java
import java.io.*;
public class CleanupExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
InputStream in = new FileInputStream(args[0]);
try {
OutputStream out = new FileOutputStream(args[1]);
try {
byte[] b = new byte[10000];
while (true) {
int r = in.read(b);
if (r == -1) break;
out.write(b, 0, r);
}
} finally {
out.close();
}
} finally {
in.close();
}
}
}
With Lombok
import lombok.Cleanup;
import java.io.*;
public class CleanupExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
#Cleanup InputStream in = new FileInputStream(args[0]);
#Cleanup OutputStream out = new FileOutputStream(args[1]);
byte[] b = new byte[10000];
while (true) {
int r = in.read(b);
if (r == -1) break;
out.write(b, 0, r);
}
}
}

No, Java has no using statement equivalent.

In java 8 you can use try. Please refer to following page. http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/tryResourceClose.html

Please see this List of Java Keywords.
The using keyword is unfortunately not part of the list.
And there is also no equivalence of the C# using keyword through any other keyword as for now in Java.
To imitate such "using" behaviour, you will have to use a try...catch...finally block, where you would dispose of the resources within finally.

ARM blocks, from project coin will be in Java 7. This is feature is intended to bring similar functionality to Java as the .Net using syntax.

To answer the question regarding limiting scope of a variable, instead of talking about automatically closing/disposing variables.
In Java you can define closed, anonymous scopes using curly brackets. It's extremely simple.
{
AwesomeClass hooray = new AwesomeClass()
// Great code
}
The variable hooray is only available in this scope, and not outside it.
This can be useful if you have repeating variables which are only temporary.
For example, each with index. Just like the item variable is closed over the for loop (i.e., is only available inside it), the index variable is closed over the anonymous scope.
// first loop
{
Integer index = -1;
for (Object item : things) {index += 1;
// ... item, index
}
}
// second loop
{
Integer index = -1;
for (Object item : stuff) {index += 1;
// ... item, index
}
}
I also use this sometimes if you don't have a for loop to provide variable scope, but you want to use generic variable names.
{
User user = new User();
user.setId(0);
user.setName("Andy Green");
user.setEmail("andygreen#gmail.com");
users.add(user);
}
{
User user = new User();
user.setId(1);
user.setName("Rachel Blue");
user.setEmail("rachelblue#gmail.com");
users.add(user);
}