New Instance of object skipping overloaded constructor - c#

Using vs2012, I've got a Test Unit project (for testing a Service) that incorporates an .edmx file and linq. The edmx is created at design time and I have created an object (called Store.Data.Common) that retrieves the connection string from the App.Config file (decrypts the string and builds the entire string including the meta data):
//Object is called Store.Data.Common
public static string GetConnectionString(string databaseName)
{
var security = new Security();
var connectionString = security.GetDecoded(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings[databaseName+"Encrypted"].ToString(), 0);
var environment = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["Environment"].ToString();
var dataSource = security.GetDecoded(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings[environment], 0);
connectionString = string.Format(connectionString, dataSource);
return connectionString;
}
I've also modified the .tt files to include an overload of the constructor to call this method to build the connection string, like so:
//Original Constructor which I modified and added the parameter to pass to the other constructor.
public StoreContext()
: base("name=StoreContext")
{
}
//Constructor I added:
public StoreContext(string connection)
{
Store.Data.Common.ConnectionBuilder.GetConnectionString("StoreContext");
}
Everything builds correctly, however, when I try to new-up an object for the StoreContext and leave the constructor empty, it never gets to the second constructor:
StoreContext storeContext = new StoreContext();
When I debug this test and walk through it, it only gets to the first constructor and that's it. Obviously, if I do something like this:
StoreContext storeContext = new StoreContext("Blah");
Then it goes to the second one as expected....by my question is, why doesn't the first method work when passing nothing to the constructor? Technically it should work, right?

I think you mean to use
public StoreContext()
: this("name=StoreContext")
{
}
(using this rather than base).
using this() means you're calling a constructor on the same class. When you say base() you're trying to call a constructor on the base class.
Edit: It also doesn't look like you're using the parameter you're passing into that non-default constructor. But that's another issue, not the root of your problem.

Related

Having trouble with AddSingleton and how it actually works?

I have the following line in my Startup.cs file:
services.AddSingleton<IFirewallPorts>(Configuration.GetSection("FirewallPorts").Get<FirewallPorts>());
This reads data from the FirewallPorts section of my appsettings.json file and assigns that data to the FirewallPorts class.
I understand AddSingleton to be:
creates a single instance throughout the application. It creates the instance for the first time and reuses the same object in the all calls.
Now if I directly inject the FirewallPorts into a class like this, it works fine.
public class SomeClass : ISomeClass
{
private readonly IFirewallPorts _fireWallPorts;
public SomeClass(IFirewallPorts fireWallPorts)
{
_fireWallPorts = fireWallPorts;
}
But if I do this:
FirewallPorts fp = new FirewallPorts();
SomeClass sc = new SomeClass(fp);
Everything in fp is null.
Why would this be and how would I fix this?
Thanks!
Why would this be
Most probably because the default constructor of FirewallPorts doesn't do any intialization of the fields or properties.
how would I fix this?
Implement the constructor to actually initialize the object as expected, or set the properties yourself after you have created the instance:
FirewallPorts fp = new FirewallPorts() { SomeProperty = "somevalue.." };
The Configuration.GetSection.Get method does the latter for you behind the scenes, i.e. it creates and instance and set its properties according to what you specified in the configuration file.
There is no magic with Dependency Injection. When you do:
FirewallPorts fp = new FirewallPorts();
SomeClass sc = new SomeClass(fp);
You are not using any DI implementation. You're just creating the class with the default properties which in your case is null values.
Lets say for example you're using asp.net. Asp.net is using the DI infrastructure to create instances of your classes in response to http requests.
As an example you could do the same thing in your startup code if you built the service provider:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddSingleton<IFirewallPorts>(Configuration.GetSection("FirewallPorts").Get<FirewallPorts>());
IServiceProvider provider = services.BuildServiceProvider();
IFirewallPorts ports = provider.GetRequiredService<IFirewallPorts>();
}
Your "ports" instance above would now have valid values. To state this another way, you shouldn't be manually creating IFirewallPorts instances.

Dependency Injection With Interface but Constructor Needs String Parameter

I have a repository class that has a constructor with string parameter argument. It is a connection string. I created an interface for it and I'm using Unity in my UI project.
My question is, how do I set this up the 'right' way so that Unity will know how to properly construct my class in order to inject it when instantiating my controller?
I currently 'worked around' this by using a parameterless constructor for my repository but feel like this is a cop out.
Here is my repository constructor I want to use...
public CobraLettersRepository(string dbConnectionString)
{
_connString = dbConnectionString ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(dbConnectionString);
dbConnection = new SqlConnection(_connString);
dbConnection.Open();
}
I created ICobraLettersRepository and want to inject it into my controller constructor.
public CobraLetterController(ICobraLetterRepository cobraLetterRepository)
{
if (cobraLetterRepository == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(cobraLetterRepository);
_cobraLetterRepo = cobraLetterRepository;
}
When I try this, the code compiles but I get runtime errors whenever I attempt to navigate to a part of my app where those controller methods are called.
I would say to encapsulate the Connection String inside a configuration object and put the get of the connection string inside the constructor of that configuration object.
Then just register your configuration object as other class.
public class ProjectConfiguration
{
public string ConnectionString { get; set; }
public ProjectConfiguration()
{
ConnectionString = //Get the configuration from , i.e: ConfigurationManager
}
}
And then, inject it :
public CobraLettersRepository(ProjectConfiguration configuration)
{
if(configuration == null){
throw new ArgumentNullException(configuration);
}
_connString = configuration.ConnectionString;
dbConnection = new SqlConnection(_connString);
dbConnection.Open();
}
With that you can always isolate the config from the DI container and leave the injection as simple as you can. Also, you can get the config from your config files (one per environment).
EDIT: Also check your repository constructor logic, maybe you don't want to Open the connection on the constructor. Is better to make a using statement on your class methods like :
using(SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(_injectedConfiguration.ConnectionString)){
connection.Open();
//Make your stuff here
}
With the using you ensure that the connection will be correctly disposed.
Note that with the configuration object approach you can just store the configuration object in a private readonly variable and use it whatever you need.
During registration use an InjectionConstructor to pass the connection string name. You need to remove all constructors except one that expects a string argument.
container.RegisterType<ICobraLetterRepository,CobraLettersRepository>(new InjectionConstructor("connectionstringname"));
Please note that it will lead to problems somewhere/sometime. You need to change the logic to create the database connection (you may refer to Breaking SOLID Principles in multiple implementation of an Interface or Resolve named registration dependency in Unity with runtime parameter).

Dependency Injection for DAL with multiple database strings using StructureMap

I have an application that uses Structuremap for DI for both my business and DAL layer. Up to this point, I have had a single DAL per environment that I have been working on. So I would grab it from the config and use that value for all my connections. An example of this is.
using (SqlConnection con = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["Database"].ToString()))
{
//Do a call to db here.
}
I am calling this method using structure map as follows.
ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IDALManager>().MethodName();
Now I have a new feature where I want to allow the users to make change in a dev environment and then push a button to elevate it to test or prod environment. Therefore my connectionstring for the DAL manager will need to be able to change. I also would like to keep all the connection string access in the DAL and not in the other layers. I am looking for advice on how to do this or what design patterns to look into for this.
UPDATED INFORMATION
The user will determine which connection string needs to be used. For example, they will be moving data from dev to test, they will select a source and a destination.
string source = \\user selection from combobox.
if (source == "DEV")
{
//Instantiate dev instance of manager
}
if (source == "TEST")
{
//Instantiate Test Instance of manager.
}
You need an abstract factory. Take a look at the answer in this question for some examples.
In your particular case, your abstract factory interface should look like this:
public interface IDALManagerFactory
{
IDALManager Create(string environment);
}
You need to create an implementation of this interface that creates a "DAL Manager" with the appropriate connection string.
To be able to do this, you need the connection string to be injected into the constructor of your class like this:
public class MyDalManager: IDALManager
{
private readonly string connectionString;
public MyDalManager(string connectionString)
{
this.connectionString = connectionString;
}
public MyMethod()
{
//..
using (SqlConnection con = new SqlConnection(connectionString))
{
//Do a call to db here.
}
}
}
Now the implementation of the factory would look something like this:
public class DALManagerFactory : IDALManagerFactory
{
public IDALManager Create(string environment)
{
if(environment == "DEV")
return new MyDalManager(
ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["Database"].ToString());
//...
}
}
This factory class should live in the Composition Root. You can also access the container inside this factory class to create the "DAL Manager".
Now, the class that needs access to the appropriate "DAL Manager" should have a IDALManagerFactory injected into its constructor, and it would use such factory to create a IDALManager by invoking the Create method passing the environment name.
Please note that in your code, you are accessing the connection string in the DAL layer. You really should access such information in the composition root only.

Add WSID in EF connectionstring

I need to pass a WSID in the connectionstring of an Entity Framework context.
I dont want to update all the instanciations that i have, to pass a new connectionstring so i was wondering if there is a method to override that can be of help?
For information, i have this actually:
using(var context = new SampleEntities())
and i dont want to rewrite it like that:
using(var context = new SampleEntities(NewConnectionString))
I tried to override the CreateContext method without success...
With EntityFramework 6, it's not more possible to pass natively a connection string to the constructor of the context (there's no more constructor for that) so i had overload my context class to add the constructor
public partial class MyObjectEntities : DbContext
{
public MyObjectEntities(string connectionString)
: base(connectionString)
{
}
}
In addition, because it's not possible to update the connection string inside the context after instanciation, i had to make the desired connection string before instanciating of my context.
So to do that, i created a dll project (sharable between mutiples projects) able to configure my environnement and containing my desired WSID.
Here is the construtor of a connection string gave by Microsoft http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/en-en/library/bb738533%28v=vs.110%29.aspx

How to set CommandTimeout for DbContext?

I am looking a way to set CommandTimeout for DbContext. After searching I found the way by casting DbContext into ObjectContext and setting value for CommandTimeout property of objectContext.
var objectContext = (this.DbContext as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext;
But I have to work with DbContext.
It will work with your method.
Or subclass it (from msdn forum)
public class YourContext : DbContext
{
public YourContext()
: base("YourConnectionString")
{
// Get the ObjectContext related to this DbContext
var objectContext = (this as IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext;
// Sets the command timeout for all the commands
objectContext.CommandTimeout = 120;
}
}
var ctx = new DbContext();
ctx.Database.CommandTimeout = 120;
This may help you.
public class MyContext : DbContext
{
public MyContext () : base(ContextHelper.CreateConnection("my connection string"), true)
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = 300;
}
}
I find that changing the .tt file works for me as I don't lose the change later on:
Add this line:
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = 300;
Right after the DbContext creator and before the !loader.IsLazy construct:
<#=Accessibility.ForType(container)#> partial class <#=code.Escape(container)#> : DbContext
{
public <#=code.Escape(container)#>()
: base("name=<#=container.Name#>")
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = 300;
<#
if (!loader.IsLazyLoadingEnabled(container))
It should then appear in your generated Context.cs:
public MyEntities()
: base("name=MyEntities")
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = 300;
}
Here's how I solved this problem when using an EDMX file. This solution changes the default T4 template to make the generated class inherit from a custom DbContext class, which specifies a default command timeout, and a property to change it.
I'm using Visual Studio 2012 and EF 5.0. Your experience may differ with other versions.
Create a custom DbContext class
public class CustomDbContext : DbContext
{
ObjectContext _objectContext;
public CustomDbContext( string nameOrConnectionString )
: base( nameOrConnectionString )
{
var adapter = (( IObjectContextAdapter) this);
_objectContext = adapter.ObjectContext;
if ( _objectContext == null )
{
throw new Exception( "ObjectContext is null." );
}
_objectContext.CommandTimeout = Settings.Default.DefaultCommandTimeoutSeconds;
}
public int? CommandTimeout
{
get
{
return _objectContext.CommandTimeout;
}
set
{
_objectContext.CommandTimeout = value;
}
}
}
This has an optional feature: I'm not hard-coding the default command timeout. Instead, I'm loading it from the project settings so that I can change the value in a config file. How to setup and use project settings is not in the scope of this answer.
I'm also not hard-coding the connection string or connection string name. It's already passed into the constructor by the generated context class, so it makes no sense to hard-code it here. This is nothing new; the EDMX file already generates the following constructor for you, so we are just passing along the value.
public MyEntities()
: base("name=MyEntities")
{
}
(This instructs EF to load the connection string named "MyEntities" from the config file.)
I'm throwing a custom exception if the ObjectContext is ever null. I don't think it ever will be, but it's more meaningful than getting a NullReferenceException.
I store the ObjectContext in a field so that I can make a property to access it to override the default.
Modifying the entity context T4 template
In the Solution Explorer, expand the EDMX file so that you see the T4 templates. They have a .tt extension.
Double click the "MyModel.Context.tt" file to open it. Around line 57 you should see this:
<#=Accessibility.ForType(container)#> partial class <#=code.Escape(container)#> : DbContext
This template line generates the class definition of your "MyEntities" class, which inherits DbContext.
Change the line so that the generated class inherits CustomDbContext, instead:
<#=Accessibility.ForType(container)#> partial class <#=code.Escape(container)#> : CustomDbContext
As soon as you save this file it should regenerate the class. If not, you can right-click the EDMX file and select "Run Custom Tool". If you expand the "MyModel.Context.tt" file under your EDMX file, you will see "MyModel.Context.cs". That's the generated file. Open it, and you should see that it now inherits CustomDbContext.
public partial class MyEntities : CustomDbContext
That's all there is to it.
Issues
Once you change the context class from DbContext to CustomDbContext, Visual Studio will give you an error if you try to add a new MVC controller class using the "Controller with read/write actions and views, using Entity Framework" template. It will say "Unsupported context type.". To get around this, open the generated "MyModel.Context.cs" class, and temporarily change the type it inherits back to DbContext. After adding your new controller, you can change it back to CustomDbContext.
I like the extension approach:
public static class DbContextExtensions
{
public static void SetCommandTimeout(this ObjectContext dbContext,
int TimeOut)
{
dbContext.CommandTimeout = TimeOut;
}
}
and then simply
((IObjectContextAdapter)cx).ObjectContext.SetCommandTimeout(300);
If it can help, this is the VB.Net solution:
Dim objectContext As Objects.ObjectContext = CType(Me,IObjectContextAdapter).ObjectContext
objectContext.commandTimeout = connectionTimeout
This is similar to the approach used by #Glazed above but my approach is also to use a custom DbContext class, but I am doing the reverse. Instead of modifying the T4 template (.tt file under your .edmx), I actually inherit from the resulting MyEntities Class instead like so:
MyEntities class generated by the T4 Template:
public partial class MyEntities : DbContext
{
public MyEntities()
: base("name=MyConnectionStringName")
{
}
...
}
Then create a new custom class as a wrapper around MyEntities like the following:
public class MyEntitiesContainer : MyEntities
{
private static readonly int _DEFAULT_TIMEOUT = 100;
public MyEntitiesContainer()
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = _DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
}
//Use this method to temporarily override the default timeout
public void SetCommandTimeout(int commandTimeout)
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = commandTimeout;
}
//Use this method to reset the timeout back to default
public void ResetCommandTimeout()
{
((IObjectContextAdapter)this).ObjectContext.CommandTimeout = _COMMAND_TIMEOUT;
}
}
In your code, instantiate the Container class and if you need to use a custom timeout for a specific command, set it manually using the provided methods.
using (var db = new MyEntitiesContainer()) {
db.SetCommandTimeout(300);
db.DoSomeLongCommand();
db.ResetCommandTimeout();
db.DoShorterCommand1();
db.DoShorterCommand2();
...
}
The benefit to this approach is that you can also create an interface for your Container class and use instances of the interface with dependency injection, then you can mock up your database in your unit tests in addition to having easier control over the command timeout and other properties of the object context that you can create methods for (such as lazy loading, etc).
I came here looking for an example of setting the timeout for a single command rather than such a global setting.
I figure that it will probably help someone to have an example of how I achieved this:
var sqlCmd = new SqlCommand(sql, context.Database.Connection as SqlConnection);
sqlCmd.Parameters.Add(idParam);
sqlCmd.CommandTimeout = 90;
if (sqlCmd.Connection.State == System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed)
{
sqlCmd.Connection.Open();
}
sqlCmd.ExecuteNonQuery();
sqlCmd.Connection.Close();
#PerryTribolet's answer looks good for EF6 but it does work for EF5. For EF, here is one way to do it: create an ObjectContext, set the CommandTimeout on that and then create a DBContext from the ObjectContext. I set the flag to have both objects disposed of together. Here is an example in VB.NET:
Dim context As New ObjectContext("name=Our_Entities")
Dim dbcontext As New System.Data.Entity.DbContext(context, True)
With context
.CommandTimeout = 300 'DBCommandTimeout
End With
You don't have to use "With" of course.

Categories

Resources