I implemented the exception filter like here: http://www.asp.net/web-api/overview/web-api-routing-and-actions/exception-handling
And registered it globally, like microsoft or stackoverflow-users ( How to add global ASP.Net Web Api Filters? ) explained.
public static void RegisterWebApiFilters(System.Web.Http.Filters.GlobalFilterCollection filters)
{
//other filters
filters.Add(new MyExceptionFilter());
}
But if I throw an exception, my method is not called.
My exception-handling method is called only if I add the attribute [MyExceptionFilter] to the controller-method, but I hoped I can avoid that for all methods by registering the filter globally.
I tried to set a order for the filters, but this had no effect.
Edit: I have noticed, that in the new Wep Api RC the method is called "RegisterGlobalFilters" and this seems to be the MVC filter collection.
If I call
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Filters.Add(new MyExceptionFilter());
it works. This is the collection for the Web Api.
Looks like I have to build my own "FilterConfig" class for the web api...
Like I mentioned in my question: There are different filter collections. One for MVC and one for the web api.
If you want to add the filter to the web api, add this line of code to the global.asax
GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Filters.Add(new MyExceptionFilter());
Related
I have created a new solution for my MvvmCross app that supported Windows Store and I want to support UWP on Windows 10. I have moved over the PCL successfully, but I am having problems getting the basic UWP app working using a sample provided by MS (NavigationMenu) which uses the SplitView and the AppShell pattern they are recommending for the new navigation/command model. I referenced a helpful blog post (http://stephanvs.com/implementing-a-multi-region-presenter-for-windows-10-uwp-and-mvvmcross/), which gave me some guidance on how to integrate mvvmcross into the AppShell, but startup is failing because the AppShell does not have a valid Frame defined. Frame is a read-only property, and I have been unable to see where this is being set up.
I am using the standard AppShell implementation from the NavigationMenu with the following changes as recommended in the blog post:
public sealed partial class AppShell : MvxWindowsPage // was Page
public Frame AppFrame { get { return this.Frame; } } // was this.frame
Except for code after the error, there are no differences in the setup. In looking at the MvxWindowsPage implementation, there doesn't seem to be anything special as it still invokes the Page initialization. Is there something obvious I am missing?
So the link to the blogpost is correct, in other words you'll need to use MultiRegions from MvvmCross to get this working.
But what the blogpost doesn't show is a complete working version...
I've added one on my github here:
https://github.com/Depechie/MvvmCrossUWPSplitView
Some pointers to take away, like I said in the comments.
Your view where the SplitView will be present, needs to have a property to return a valid Frame to look for while injecting new views. This can be returned like this return (Frame)this.WrappedFrame.UnderlyingControl; found in the code here https://github.com/Depechie/MvvmCrossUWPSplitView/blob/master/MvvmCrossUWP.Win/Views/FirstView.xaml.cs#L13
Than all views you want to load up in the SplitView will need to reference to the region you defined in that SplitView, in my case I named it FrameContent as seen here https://github.com/Depechie/MvvmCrossUWPSplitView/blob/master/MvvmCrossUWP.Win/Views/FirstView.xaml#L48
So use that name for the region attribute in all to be loaded views like so [MvxRegion("FrameContent")] example here https://github.com/Depechie/MvvmCrossUWPSplitView/blob/master/MvvmCrossUWP.Win/Views/SecondView.xaml.cs#L7
I see what you're trying to do with the SplitView template that's provided by Microsoft. There is however a mismatch between things managed by MvvmCross and UWP.
By default MvvmCross maps ViewModels to Views based on naming conventions. What you are trying to do is use a view 'AppShell' (which is derived of Windows.UI.Xaml.Controls.Page) that doesn't adhere to the default MvvmCross convention.
The way I choose to implement this SplitView (Hamburger) functionality is by deleting the provided AppShell class entirely. I then created a new view named HomeView (since I have a ViewModel with the name HomeViewModel) and added the SplitView control there as described in the post you mentioned above.
For completeness I've created a Gist with the App.xaml.cs and HomeView.xaml as you requested. You can find them here: https://gist.github.com/Stephanvs/7bb2cdc9dbf15cb7a90f
I have one Windows Handheld device application which has the requirement of accessing a REST API. The REST API gives me JSON output which I am going to handle via Newton.JSON. Now to achieve modular structure I want to have the communication to the REST API be handled via a different module altogether something like a Class Library. But unfortunately it seems that it is not possible to do so via a class library(or maybe possible). So my question is what is the best alternative to do so?
Please note that I don't want to include those connectivity operations in my front end application project. And I am using .Net framework 3.5 & Windows Mobile SDK 6.0
Thanks in advance
Pseudo class library code:
public function void startQuery() //starts a thread that does the JSON query
//inside thread on query result use OnDone() delegate
private delegate void OnDone(string dateTimeString);
//In main GUI code add a reference to the class lib and init a new object then add an event handler to the OnDone delegate of the class lib
JSONClassLib myJson=new JSONClassLib();
...
myJson.OnDone+=new EventHandler(myEventHandler);
void myEventHandler(sender this, objext o){
//will be called when query is done
}
//you need to use Control.Invoke if you want to update the GUI from myEventHandler
//to start a query use something like this from your class lib
myJson.doQuery(string);
If you add your existing code we may help with creating a class lib and async code
Now I got my answer. Sorry I did a mistake while selecting the project type. I selected "Windows Form Class Library" project instead of "Smart Device Class Library" project. Now that I have selected the right one it is working fine for me.
BTW thanks for those responses.
Cheers
I've been running into endless problems attempting to use Windsor with Web API and injecting HttpRequestMessage into downstream dependencies of a controller. Since I've tried all the matching answers on Stackoverflow, I'd like to ask the question in a different way:
In Castle Windsor, how can I resolve a component instance while supplying a value for a downstream dependency? That is, the supplied value is required by a component that is required by the component being resolved.
For context, I'm trying to inject HttpRequestMessage so that I can use it to resolve the request context (primarily to resolve an absolute URL).
Edit I'd also like to point out that I don't currently have a dependency on Web Host / System.Web and I'd rather not change that.
A proper approach is to
Create IMyDesiredRouteParameterProvider
Implement it. Get the current request inside it and get the url
Register it and inject it in the desired dependent class via constructor.
I made myself such an implementation and I can say that this way it works fine. You can make Web.Infrastructure assembly and put the implementation there. Or put both the interface and the implementation there if you are going to reference it from another web module.
using System;
using System.Web;
namespace RouteParameterProvider
{
interface IMyRouteParameterProvider
{
string GetRouteParameter();
}
public class ControllerActionMethodRouteParameterProvider : IMyRouteParameterProvider
{
public string GetRouteParameter()
{
string Parameter = HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext.RouteData.Values["controller"] as string;
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(Parameter))
{
throw new InvalidOperationException();
}
return Parameter;
}
}
}
You can get every possible thing that the Request Context contains from :
HttpContext.Current.Request.RequestContext
And it will be better if you rethink your design decision :
I need HttpRequestMessage to be regstered prior to creating each
instance of SomethingController so that it will be available down at
the LinkGenerator layer.
Containers are to be initialized at runtime and then used to resolve.
I need HttpRequestMessage to be regstered prior to creating each
instance of SomethingController so that it will be available down at
the LinkGenerator layer.
It sounds like you want to register an item with the container at runtime, post-startup. In general, this is not a good practice--registration should be a discrete event that happens when the app is fired up, and the container's state should not be changed during runtime.
Dependency Injection is about resolving service components, not runtime state--state is generally passed via methods (method injection). In this case it sounds like your LinkGenerator component needs access to the ambient state of the request.
I'm not that familiar with HttpRequestMessage, but this answer seems to show that it is possible to retreive it from HttpContext.Current. You could make this a method on your LinkGenerator class, or wrap this call in a separate component that gets injected into LinkGenerator (HttpRequestMessageProvider?). The latter would be my preferred method, as it allows LinkGenerator to be more testable.
Given the lack of a clean way of doing this and Web API not providing information as to the hosted endpoint beyond per-request context objects, I ended up injecting the base url from configuration.
Is this library by Mark Seemann the answer? In the description he writes explicitly :
This approach enables the use of Dependency Injection (DI) because the
request can be injected into the services which require it.
Then gives an example :
// Inside an ApiController
var uri = this.Url.GetLink(a=> a.GetById(1337));
By which you can then pass the URL down the road in the service that you have injected in the controller.
UPDATE :
Mark Seemann wrote about the same exact problem here:
"Because HttpRequestMessage provides the context you may need to
compose dependency graphs, the best extensibility point is the
extensibility point which provides an HttpRequestMessage every time a
graph should be composed. This extensibility point is the
IHttpControllerActivator interface:..."
This way you can pass request context information to a component deep in the object graph by getting from the HttpRequestMessage and passing it to the DI container.
Just take a look at the interface of IHttpControllerActivator.
The WEB API framework gets the IHttpControllerActivator through DependencyResolver. You probably already replaced it by your CastleWindsorDependencyResolver. Now you have to implement and register your HttpControllerActivator and register it.
When the WEB API framework gets IHttpControllerActivator from DependencyResolver (your Castle Windsor DR) and calls IHttpControllerActivator.Create() it will pass you the HttpRequestMessage. You can get your info from there and pass it to the your CastleDR before you call Resolve(typeof(MyController)) which will resolve the whole object graph - that means you will have MyHttpContextInfo to inject in your XYZComponent deep in the resolution stack.
This way tou are passing the arguments in the last possible moment but it is still possible. In Castle Windsor I make such passing of arguments though CreationContext.AdditionalArguments["myArgument"];.
I´m developing an App that will be available for Windows Phone 8 and the Windows Store. To reduce redundancy I´m using a Portable Class Library (PCL) and on top of that I'm trying to apply the MVVM pattern with the help of the MVVM Light PCL Toolkit. The ViewModels are placed in the PCL and are bound directly in the XAML of the Apps pages.
When the data is received without an error, everything works fine. But I don´t know how to get the exceptions/error message back to the App when errors do happen.
Inside the Windows Store App errors will show as a MessageDialog while the Wp8 App will use the MessageBox class. Obviously the PCL isn´t aware of any of these classes. What I´m not getting is how to know if a ViewModel ran into an error, and how to get the message inside the App. Is this even possible when the ViewModels are bound inside the XAML?
The code in the ViewModel (inside the PCL) looks like this:
DataService.Authenticate((token, error) =>
{
if (error != null)
{
// This is, obviously, not going to work.
MessageBox.Show(error.Message);
return;
}
Token = token;
});
So I have to save the error somehow and let the App itself know the error has occurred, and then call the matching way of showing the error to the user.
Currently I´m thinking of something like defining an Error-property inside the BaseViewModel and fill it when errors in the ViewModel occur. Then, in the CodeBehind of the pages, make them aware of the current ViewModel and bind a PropertyChanged-event to this Error-property. But I was not able to implement it yet, so I don't know if this is even the right way to go.
Do I have to step down from the idea to bind the ViewModels inside the XAML, and do I instead have to initialize them inside the pages Codebehind?
Your instinct is correct, but there are more than a few ways of going about this.
First and foremost, you can use Mvvm's Messaging library, which will allow your ViewModel to send messages directly to your View. Your View can then handle it in any way it wishes, including but not limited to using a MessageDialog.
Secondly, you can also create a Function or Action (likely the former) in your ViewModelLocator for ShowMessageDialog. This Function will likely take a string and return a Task. Then, after you initialize your ViewModelLocator initially, you can inject your ShowMessageDialog code. Your ViewModels can then use whatever platform's MessageDialogs that they please.
Ex:
Note: This code uses the BCL Async libraries that are accessible in Nuget. They work in the PCL just fine.
ViewModelLocator:
public static Func<string, Task> ShowMessageDialog { get; set; }
App.xaml.cs:
ViewModelLocator.ShowMessageDialog = (message) =>
{
// For Windows Phone
return TaskFactory.StartNew(() => MessageBox.Show(message));
// For Windows 8
MessageDialog md = new MessageDialog(message);
return md.ShowAsync().AsTask();
};
ViewModel:
await ViewModelLocator.ShowMessageDialog("This is my message.");
Secondary Note: The md.ShowAsync().AsTask(); must be run on the UI Thread. This means that you will have to invoke it via the dispatcher in the case that you are running it in a task asynchronously. This is possible using a similar method of injecting the use of the app's CoreDispatcher via the RunAsync method.
This means that you can, on any platform (Windows 8 and Windows Phone shown above), inject whatever Message Dialog system you want and use it in your PCL.
I would say that it is much easier to do the first method I suggested, as that is what it is there for, but the Function method version is definitely helpful at times.
I'm using PHPStorm v3 and have some code which connects to a certain SOAP service. (via a simple PHP SoapClient) No problems whatsoever. But the PHPStorm inspector cant find the methods available of the WSDL and thus cant recognize the used methods:
$this->soap = new SoapClient('somewsdl url');
$issues = $this->soap->getIssuesFromJqlSearch($this->auth,
'ticketId = '.$ticket->getId().'
AND impId ~ "'.$currentImplementation->getIdentifier().'"', 1);
Everything works but the method 'getIssuesFromJqlSearch' which is provided by the external WSDL is highlighted with the mentioning of an undefined method... How can i 'tell' PHPStorm what should/could be used (or explain how to parse the WSDL?)
You can suppress the inspection for this statement from the Alt+Enter, right arrow menu:
This is not perfect, since it does not parse the WSDL and you have to do it manually, but works fine after the initial setup.
Create a class extending the native SoapClient and use annotations to add virtual methods:
/**
* #method mixed getIssuesFromJqlSearch
**/
class VendorSpecific extends \SoapClient {}
Or you could generate such client yourself, implementing all the methods as a proxy to self::__soapCall(). See my SoapClient generator for reference. The upside is that it can parse the WSDL, though not perfectly.