I have a command which interacts with an API. If the command doesn't return a desired result it sets a property of the ViewModel called Error.
I want to bind Error to a UIAlertController in my View and have it display when the error occurs.
Here's roughly what I have (although obviously the visibility converter isn't the way to go). I should add that I'm aware PresentViewController should be used to display the UIAlertController.
UIAlertController myAlert = UIAlertController.Create ("", Error.Text, UIAlertControllerStyle.Alert);
set.Bind(myAlert).For("Visibility").To((myViewModel vm) => vm.Error).WithConversion("Visibility");
Check out Observer design pattern.
The way I prefer to achieve that is simple:
Create class which inherits from MvxMessage - let say ShowAlertDialogMessage with properties like title, content and so on.
Create abstract MessageObserver where TMessage : MvxMessage class, ex.:
public interface IMessageObserver
{
void Subscribe(IMvxMessenger messenger);
void Unsubscribe();
}
public abstract class MessageObserver<TMessage> : IMessageObserver where TMessage : MvxMessage
{
public void Subscribe(IMvxMessenger messenger) {
messenger.SubscribeOnMainThread<TMessage>(OnMessageDelivered);
}
public abstract void OnMessageDelivered(TMessage message);
}
Create MessageObserverController
public class MessageObserverController {
public void SubscribeObserver(IMessageObserver msgObserver) {
msgObserver.Subscribe(messenger);
}
.. unsubscribe, dispose and so on goes here
}
Implement ShowAlertDialogMessageObserver class (inherit from MessageObserver<ShowAlertDialogMessage>() which shows UIAlertViewController with data from ShowAlertDialogMessage (title, content and so on). Pass root UIViewController as constructor if needed (you will register MessageObservers in your viewcontrollers anyway - so that's not a problem).
Use MessageObserverController in your ViewControllers (preferably create base view controller to simplify things).
Voilà - you get reusable UI logic, which you can raise by publishing message in your PCL ViewModel (without creating any platform-specific coupling!).
Related
I am using dotnet core and have created a custom exception filter to handle exceptions. The problem i face is that in case of exceptions , the onException method in the custom filter is called two times. Below is the code :
public class CustomExceptionFilter : ExceptionFilterAttribute
{
public override void OnException(ExceptionContext context)
{
// Code
base.OnException(context);
}
}
Controller Code is :
[CustomExceptionFilter]
public class MyController : Controller
{
// Raise an exception in any apis
}
Why onException is called two times?
Using Visual Studio I created a new Asp.Net Core Web Application and used the standard Web Application Template. Then I added the CustomExceptionFilter class and added the [CustomExceptionFilter] attribute to the HomeController and threw and exception inside it's Index method:
[CustomExceptionFilter]
public class HomeController : Controller
{
public IActionResult Index()
{
throw new Exception("Time to bail!");
return View();
}
}
Finaly, I set a breakpoint on this line in the CustomExceptionFilter:
base.OnException(context);
And ran the website. The debugger stops on the throw of course, and then it stops on the line with the breakpoint. The breakpoint is only hit once. So my setup verifies the expected behavior.
Troubleshooting
In the past, I have ran into similar situations where something that should only be called once is called twice and it's almost always turned out to be because a second http request came in that I wasn't expecting. So it really was only being called once per http request. One way to check on that is to look at the path and query in the method which you can do as indicated below:
public class CustomExceptionFilter : ExceptionFilterAttribute {
public override void OnException(ExceptionContext context) {
//set breakpoing on the following line to see what the requested path and query is
string pathAndQuery = context.HttpContext.Request.Path + context.HttpContext.Request.QueryString;
// Code
base.OnException(context);
}
}
Another scenario that can cause this is adding the attribute in two places:
I had this:
config.Filters.Add( new StandardExceptionHandlingAttribute() );
AND this:
[StandardExceptionHandling]
public async Task<int?> ....
Most of my components are registered using the code-based (fluent) approach, but there is one particular component that I need to resolve differently at runtime. This is the interface and a couple of concrete implementations:-
public interface ICommsService ...
public class SerialCommsService : ICommsService ...
public class TcpCommsService : ICommsService ...
Some of our users will need the serial service while others will need the TCP service. My current solution (which works btw) is to use a typed factory and a custom component selector - the latter reads an app.config setting to determine which implementation the typed factory will resolve and return.
First the typed factory (nothing special about this):-
public interface ICommsServiceFactory
{
ICommsService Create();
void Release(ICommsService component);
}
Next, the custom component selector, which reads the fully-qualified type name from app.config (e.g. "MyApp.SomeNamespace.TcpCommsService"):-
public class CommsFactoryComponentSelector : DefaultTypedFactoryComponentSelector
{
protected override string GetComponentName(MethodInfo method, object[] arguments)
{
return ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["commsServiceType"];
}
}
Then the registration stuff:-
var container = new WindsorContainer();
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
container.Register(Component.For<ITypedFactoryComponentSelector>()
.ImplementedBy<CommsFactoryComponentSelector>());
container.Register(Component.For<ICommsFactory>()
.AsFactory(o => o.SelectedWith<CommsFactoryComponentSelector>()));
container.Register(Component.For<ICommsService>()
.ImplementedBy<SerialCommsService>().LifeStyle.Singleton);
container.Register(Component.For<ICommsService>()
.ImplementedBy<TcpCommsService>().LifeStyle.Singleton);
Finally, an example class with a dependency on ICommsService:-
public class Test
{
public Test(ICommsFactory commsFactory)
{
var commsService = commsFactory.Create();
...
}
}
As already mentioned, the above solution does work, but I don't like having to inject the factory. It would be more intuitive if I could just inject an ICommsService, and let something somewhere figure out which implementation to resolve and inject - similar to what I'm doing now but earlier in Windsor's "resolving pipeline". Is something like that possible?
You can use UsingFactoryMethod here:
container.Register(Component.For<ICommsService>().UsingFactoryMethod(kernel => kernel.Resolve<ICommsServiceFactory>().Create()));
You can inject ICommsService to any class now. ICommsServiceFactory can be a simple interface now:
interface ICommsServiceFactory
{
ICommsService Create();
}
Suppose I have two sets of controllers in Spring:
/jsonapi1/*
/jsonapi2/*
both of which return objects that are to be interpretted as JSON text.
I'd like some kind of filter to wrap the responses from one set of these controllers so that:
the original response is contained within another object.
For example, if /jsonapi1/count returns:
{"num_humans":123, "num_androids":456}
then the response should be wrapped and returned as follows:
{ "status":0,
"content":{"num_humans":123, "num_androids":456}
}
if an exception happens in the controller, then filter should catch the exception and report it as follows
{ "status":5,
"content":"Something terrible happened"
}
The responses from the other controllers are returned unchanged.
We're currently customizing a MappingJackson2HttpMessageConverter passed to WebMvcConfigurerAdapter.configureMessageConverters in order to perform the above tasks. Works great except that it doesn't seem possible for this approach to be selective about the URLs (or controller classes) it applies to.
Is it possible to apply these kinds of wrappers to individual controller classes or URLs?
Update: Servlet filters look like a solution. Is it possible chose which filter gets applied to which controller methods, or which URLs?
I was struggling on this for multiple days. The solution by #Misha didn't work for me. I was able to finally get this working using ControllerAdvice and ResponseBodyAdvice.
ResponseBodyAdvice allows to inject custom transformation logic on the response returned by a controller but before it is converted to HttpResponse and committed.
This is how my controller method looks:
#RequestMapping("/global/hallOfFame")
public List<HallOfFame> getAllHallOfFame() {
return hallOfFameService.getAllHallOfFame();
}
Now i wanted to add some standard fields around the response like devmessage and usermessage. That logic goes into the ResponseAdvice:
#ControllerAdvice
public class TLResponseAdvice implements ResponseBodyAdvice<Object> {
#Override
public boolean supports(MethodParameter returnType, Class<? extends HttpMessageConverter<?>> converterType) {
return true;
}
#Override
public Object beforeBodyWrite(Object body, MethodParameter returnType, MediaType selectedContentType,
Class<? extends HttpMessageConverter<?>> selectedConverterType, ServerHttpRequest request,
ServerHttpResponse response) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
final RestResponse<Object> output = new RestResponse<>();
output.setData(body);
output.setDevMessage("ResponseAdviceDevMessage");
output.setHttpcode(200);
output.setStatus("Success");
output.setUserMessage("ResponseAdviceUserMessage");
return output;
}
}
The entity classes look like this:
#Setter // All lombok annotations
#Getter
#ToString
public class RestResponse<T> {
private String status;
private int httpcode;
private String devMessage;
private String userMessage;
private T data;
}
#Entity
#Data // Lombok
public class HallOfFame {
#Id
private String id;
private String name;
}
To handle exceptions, simply create another ControllerAdvice with ExceptionHandler. Use the example in this link.
Advantages of this solution:
It keeps your controllers clean. You can support any return type from your controller methods.
Your controller return type class does not need to extend some base class as required by the AOP approach.
You do not need to hack your way through Spring filters by using HttpServletResponseWrappers. They come up with a performance penalty.
EDIT - 17th September 2019
To handle exceptions use #ExceptionHandler. Refer code below.
#ExceptionHandler(Exception.class)
#ResponseBody
public MyResponseEntity<Object> handleControllerException(HttpServletRequest request, Throwable ex) {
// default value
int httpCode = HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR.value();
if(ex instanceof ResourceNotFoundException) {
httpCode = HttpStatus.NOT_FOUND.value();
}
...
}
The way I understand your question, you have exactly three choices.
Option #1
Manually wrap your objects in simple SuccessResponse, ErrorResponse, SomethingSortOfWrongResponse, etc. objects that have the fields you require. At this point, you have per-request flexibility, changing the fields on one of the response wrappers is trivial, and the only true drawback is code repetition if many of the controller's request methods can and should be grouped together.
Option #2
As you mentioned, and filter could be designed to do the dirty work, but be wary that Spring filters will NOT give you access to request or response data. Here's an example of what it might look like:
#Component
public class ResponseWrappingFilter extends GenericFilterBean {
#Override
public void doFilter(
ServletRequest request,
ServletResponse response,
FilterChain chain) {
// Perform the rest of the chain, populating the response.
chain.doFilter(request, response);
// No way to read the body from the response here. getBody() doesn't exist.
response.setBody(new ResponseWrapper(response.getStatus(), response.getBody());
}
}
If you find a way to set the body in that filter, then yes, you could easily wrap it up. Otherwise, this option is a dead end.
Option #3
A-ha. So you got this far. Code duplication is not an option, but you insist on wrapping responses from your controller methods. I'd like to introduce the true solution - aspect-oriented programming (AOP), which Spring supports fondly.
If you're not familiar with AOP, the premise is as follows: you define an expression that matches (like a regular expression matches) points in the code. These points are called join points, while the expressions that match them are called pointcuts. You can then opt to execute additional, arbitrary code, called advice, when any pointcut or combination of pointcuts are matched. An object that defines pointcuts and advice is called an aspect.
It's great for expressing yourself more fluently in Java. The only drawback is weaker static type checking. Without further ado, here's your response-wrapping in aspect-oriented programming:
#Aspect
#Component
public class ResponseWrappingAspect {
#Pointcut("within(#org.springframework.stereotype.Controller *)")
public void anyControllerPointcut() {}
#Pointcut("execution(* *(..))")
public void anyMethodPointcut() {}
#AfterReturning(
value = "anyControllerPointcut() && anyMethodPointcut()",
returning = "response")
public Object wrapResponse(Object response) {
// Do whatever logic needs to be done to wrap it correctly.
return new ResponseWrapper(response);
}
#AfterThrowing(
value = "anyControllerPointcut() && anyMethodPointcut()",
throwing = "cause")
public Object wrapException(Exception cause) {
// Do whatever logic needs to be done to wrap it correctly.
return new ErrorResponseWrapper(cause);
}
}
The final result will be the non-repeating response wrapping that you seek. If you only want some or one controller receive this effect, then update the pointcut to match methods only within instances of that controller (rather than any class holding the #Controller annotation).
You'll need to include some AOP dependencies, add the AOP-enabling annotation in a configuration class, and make sure something component-scans the package this class is in.
Simplest way i manage custom responses from controllers is by utilising the Map variable.
so your code ends up looking like:
public #ResponseBody Map controllerName(...) {
Map mapA = new HashMap();
mapA.put("status", "5");
mapA.put("content", "something went south");
return mapA;
}
beauty of is is that you can configure it any thousand ways.
Currently i use for object transmition, custom exception handling and data reporting, too easy.
Hope this helps
I am also using AOP with #Around. Developed a custom annotation and using that for point cut. I am using a global Response. It has the status, Message and data which is of type List of type
List <? extends parent> dataList
( which can solve your class cast exception). All the entities extends this Parent class. This way I can set all the data into my List.
Also I am using the message key as param with the custom annotation and setting it in action.
Hope this helps.
I'm experimenting with interception in Castle Windsor and notice that interceptors seem to be created as decorators of my service interface.
In other words, if I have an interface "ISomethingDoer" and a concrete "ConcreteSomethingDoer", the proxy implements ISomethingDoer but does not inherit from ConcreteSomethingDoer.
This is fine, and no doubt by design, but what I'm wondering is whether I can intercept protected virtual methods in my concrete classes that wouldn't be known by the public interface. I am doing this in order to add logging support, but I might want to log some of the specific internal details of a class.
In my slightly unimaginative test case I have this:
public interface ISomethingDoer
{
void DoSomething(int Count);
}
[Loggable]
public class ConcreteSomethingDoer : ISomethingDoer
{
public void DoSomething(int Count)
{
for (var A = 0; A < Count; A++)
{
DoThisThing(A);
}
}
[Loggable]
protected virtual void DoThisThing(int A)
{
("Doing a thing with " + A.ToString()).Dump();
}
}
So what I want to do is log calls to "DoThisThing" even though it's not part of the interface.
I've managed to get this working in Autofac. (I've created a Linqpad script here: http://share.linqpad.net/frn5a2.linq) but am struggling with Castle Windsor (see http://share.linqpad.net/wn7877.linq)
In both cases my interceptor is the same and looks like this:
public class Logger : IInterceptor
{
public void Intercept(IInvocation Invocation)
{
String.Format("Calling method {0} on type {1} with parameters {2}",
Invocation.Method.Name,
Invocation.InvocationTarget.GetType().Name,
String.Join(", ", Invocation.Arguments.Select(a => (a ?? "*null*").ToString()).ToArray())).Dump();
Invocation.Proceed();
"Done".Dump();
}
}
What I really want to do is say "any classes with a [Loggable] attribute, should use the logging interceptor". In the Autofac example I've specifically attached a logger to the registration, whereas with Castle I'm using an IModelInterceptorsSelector which looks like this:
public class LoggerInterceptorSelector : IModelInterceptorsSelector
{
public bool HasInterceptors(ComponentModel Model)
{
return Model.Implementation.IsDefined(typeof(LoggableAttribute), true);
}
public InterceptorReference[] SelectInterceptors(ComponentModel Model, InterceptorReference[] Interceptors)
{
return new[]
{
InterceptorReference.ForType<Logger>()
};
}
}
Finally, the code to execute all this is:
var Container = new WindsorContainer();
Container.Register(
Component.For<Logger>().LifeStyle.Transient
);
Container.Kernel.ProxyFactory.AddInterceptorSelector(new LoggerInterceptorSelector());
Container.Register(
Component.For<ISomethingDoer>()
.ImplementedBy<ConcreteSomethingDoer>()
.LifeStyle.Transient
);
var Doer = Container.Resolve<ISomethingDoer>();
Doer.DoSomething(5);
When run I would expect to see "Calling method DoThisThing with parameters x" for each time the method is called. Instead I only get the call to DoSomething logged.
I can see why Castle Windsor is doing this, but I'm wondering if there is a way to tweak the behaviour?
(As a side-note I don't want to use Windsor's own interceptor attributes as I don't want to introduce dependencies to Castle outside of my composition root.)
I have tried resolving the ConcreteSomethingDoer specifically and this works, but not if I'm resolving the ISomethingDoer.
Apologies for the long post, and also apologies because I am pretty new to Castle Windsor!
I you could register like:
Container.Register(
Component.For<ISomethingDoer, ConcreteSomethingDoer>()
.ImplementedBy<ConcreteSomethingDoer>()
.LifeStyle.Transient
);
This should create a class proxy by deriving from ConcreteSomethingDoer. However this won't work with dynamic interceptors. However you probably can work around that by creating a facility which registers the interceptor when needed.
I have a model roughly like this:
public interface IUnitOfWork { }
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork { }
public interface IService { }
public class Service : IService
{
public IUnitOfWork UnitOfWork { get; set; }
}
public class ViewModel
{
public IService Service { get; set; }
}
And a configuration that could be like this:
container.Register(Component.For<IService>().ImplementedBy<Service>()
.LifeStyle.Transient
Component.For<IUnitOfWork>().ImplementedBy<UnitOfWork>()
.LifeStyle.Transient,
Component.For<ViewModel>().LifeStyle.Transient);
I need to resolve, at different points, two instances of ViewModel (I'm using a typed factory for this, but let's leave that aside for simplicity and assume I'm using the raw container)
The catch is that I need to resolve two instances of ViewModel at different points (from another ViewModel that knows about both), and they need to share the same IUnitOfWork.
So, something like this:
var vm1 = container.Resolve<ViewModel>();
//...later
var vm2 = container.Resolve<ViewModel>();
Now, it's very easy to share the Service. I'd just have to do something like:
var vm2 = container.Resolve<ViewModel>(new { vm1.Service });
But of course the actual model is more complicated (different ViewModels, with more Services each), so that's not an option.
I can pass the UnitOfWork to Resolve, but it doesn't get used by default (which makes sense). Is there any way to use that parameter (probably by registering a delegate somewhere) when resolving the second ViewModel?
I'd like to be able to do the following:
var vm2 = container.Resolve<ViewModel>(new { UnitOfWork });
And get a ViewModel whose Service has that specific UnitOfWork.
If you need to share a component and you cannot set as singleton(rich client) or perwebrequest, you need to use Contextual lifestyle.
check this thread see my last comment to downoload contrib w/ Contextual Lifestyle
For you case I assume those 2 ViewModel will be used by 1 View... so View + UoW require Contextual Lifestyle
check also this one too see comments at the end
The solution was to use ContextualLifestyle coupled with a custom factory that kept a reference to the ContainerContext, in order to use the same one when resolving another ViewModel.