When modifying linq-to-sql commandtext, should the connection be closed? - linq-to-sql

I'm modifying the commandtext of linq-to-sql to force it to use nolock, like this...
if (db.Connection.State == System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed)
db.Connection.Open();
var cmd = db.GetCommand(db.Customers.Where(p => p.ID == 1));
cmd.CommandText = cmd.CommandText.Replace("[Customers] AS [t0]", "[Customers] AS [t0] WITH (NOLOCK)");
var results = db.Translate(cmd.ExecuteReader());
It's an MVC application, so the datacontext is in the base controller, and may have been used before this code, and more importantly, after. Should I be closing the connection in this routine? Or not at all? Or only if I opened it here?
Update:
I'm now using the more general function (in the DataContext class) to modify the commandtext, and closing the connection if it was opened here. And the open has been moved down to the ExecuteReader. So far it has been working and reducing the sporadic deadlock issues. The results do not have to be right-up-to-the-second.
public List<T> GetWithNolock<T>(IQueryable<T> query)
{
// to skip nolock, just...
// return query.ToList();
List<T> results = null;
bool opened = false;
try
{
if (Connection.State == System.Data.ConnectionState.Closed)
{
Connection.Open();
opened = true;
}
using (var cmd = GetCommand(query))
{
cmd.CommandText = Regex.Replace(cmd.CommandText, #"((from|inner join) \[dbo.*as \[t\d+\])", "$1 with (nolock)", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
results = Translate<T>(cmd.ExecuteReader()).ToList();
}
}
finally
{
if (opened && Connection.State == System.Data.ConnectionState.Open)
{
Connection.Close();
}
}
return results;
}
I have found in the past that using a Transaction in the recommended way causes the site to run out of connections overnight. As far as I know, that's a bug in linq-to-sql. There may be ways around it, but I'm trying to keep my main code straightforward. I now "just" have to do this...
var users = GetWithNolock<User>(
Users
.Where(u => my query
);

If you Open it, you should Close it. Other LinqToSql operations match this pattern.
In my code, I unconditionally open the connection and close the connection in a finally. If someone passes me an open connection, that's their fault and I happen to close it for them.
You could delay opening the connection until just before ExecuteReader.

Related

How to keep event handlers alive in Actionscript 3

I have a Flex app that connects to a JBoss/MS-SQL back-end. Some of our customers have a proxy server in front of their JBoss with a timeout of 90 seconds. In our application there are searches that can take up to 2-3 minutes for complex criteria. Since the proxy isn't smart enough to recognize AMF's keep alive pings for what they are the proxy sends a 503 to the client, which in Flex land becomes a "Channel Call Failed" event. In searching SO and other places, this seems to be a common problem. We can't do anything about the proxy or lengthen the timeout, the application needs to handle it.
Of course the back-end continues to process and eventually ships the results to the client. But the user gets an ugly error message and assumes the app is broke.
The solution I have settled on is to consume the CCF error and have the client continue to wait. I have managed the first part, but I can't figure out how to keep the client's handlers active to receive the data (and/or consume another timeout if necessary).
Current error handler:
private function handleSearchError(event : FaultEvent) : void {
if (event.fault.faultCode == "Channel.Call.Failed") {
event.stopImmediatePropagation(); // doesn't seem to help
return;
}
if (searchProgress != null) {
PopUpManager.removePopUp(searchProgress);
searchProgress = null;
}
etc...
}
This is the setup:
<mx:Button id="btnSearch" label="
{resourceManager.getString('recon_perspective',
'ReconPerspective.ReconView.search')}" icon="{iconSearch}"
click="handleSearch()" includeIn="search, default"/>
And:
<mx:method name="search" result="event.token.resultHandler(event);"
fault="handleSearchError(event);"/>
Kicking off the call:
var token : AsyncToken = null;
token = sMSrv.search(searchType.toString(), getSearchMode(), criteria,
smartMatchParent.isArchiveMode);
searchProgress = LoadProgress(PopUpManager.createPopUp
(FlexGlobals.topLevelApplication as DisplayObject, LoadProgress, true));
searchProgress.title = resourceManager.getString('matching', 'smartmatch.loading.trans');
searchProgress.token = token;
searchProgress.showCancelButton = true;
PopUpManager.centerPopUp(searchProgress);
token.resultHandler = handleSearchResults;
token.cancelSearch = false;
So my question is how do I keep handleSearch and handleSearchError alive to consume the events from the server?
I verified that the data comes back from the server using WebDeveloper in the browser to watch the network traffic and if you cause the app to refresh that screen, the data gets displayed.
I'm very in experienced but would this help?
private function handleSearchError(event : FaultEvent) : void {
if (event.fault.faultCode == "Channel.Call.Failed") {
event.stopImmediatePropagation(); // doesn't seem to help
if(event.isImmediatePropagationStopped(true)) {
//After stopped do something here?
}
return;
}
if (searchProgress != null) {
PopUpManager.removePopUp(searchProgress);
searchProgress = null;
}
etc...
}

HttpClient timeouts before the timeout specified

I'm using HttpClient from WP8 and do a Post request. I know the call may take long time as I'm actually simulating slow network scenarios. Therefore I set the HttpClient.Timeout accordingly to 5 minutes.
However, I get a Timeout at around 60s. I believe the Timeout is not working.
I believe there is an issue with this for WP as stated in this question:
HttpClient Portable returns 404 notfound on WP8.
They use a workaround but that does not applies to my scenario. I do actually want to wait for long time.
My questions:
1) Is it a bug/issue of HttpClient for WP8 or I'm not setting it properly?
2) Do you think of a workaround still using HttpClient?
I've read that maybe HttpWebRequest is an option. However, I believe HttpClient should be ideal for this 'simple' scenario.
My code is simple:
private static async Task<HttpResponseMessage> PostAsync(Uri serverUri, HttpContent httpContent)
{
var client = new HttpClient();
client.Timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5);
return await client.PostAsync(serverUri, httpContent).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
The server receives the request and while is processing it, the client aborts.
UPDATE: The HttpResponseMessage returned by HttpClient.PostAsyn is this "{StatusCode: 404, ReasonPhrase: '', Version: 0.0, Content: System.Net.Http.StreamContent, Headers: { Content-Length: 0 }}". As I said, the server is found and is receiving the data and processing it.
After some search and some tests I've came to the conclusion that the problem is Windows Phone itself and that it has a 60 seconds timeout (irrespective of the HttpClient) and that cannot be changed to my knowledge. See http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/faf00a04-8a2e-4a64-b1c1-74c52cf685d3/httpwebrequest-60-seconds-timeout.
As I'm programming the server as well, I will try the advice by Darin Rousseau in the link provided above, specifically to send an OK and then do some more processing.
UPDATE: The problem seems to be the Windows Phone emulator as stated here:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/wpapps/en-us/6c114ae9-4dc1-4e1f-afb2-a6b9004bf0c6/httpclient-doesnt-work-on-windows-phone?forum=wpdevelop. In my experience the tcp connection times-out if it doesn't hear anything for 60s.
Therefore my solution is to use the Http header characters as a way of keep alive. The first line Http header response always starts with HTTP/1.0. So I send the characters one by one with a delay <60s between them. Of course, if the response gets ready, everything that is left is sent right away. This buys some time, for instance if using a delay of 50s per 9 character we get about 450s.
This is a project for my degree so I wouldn't recommend it for production.
By the way, I also tried with other characters instead the sub string of the header, for instance space character, but that results in a http protocol violation.
This is the main part of the code:
private const string Header1 = #"HTTP/1.0 ";
private int _keepAliveCounter = 0;
private readonly object _sendingLock = new object();
private bool _keepAliveDone = true;
private void StartKeepAlive()
{
Task.Run(() => KeepAlive());
}
/// <summary>
/// Keeps the connection alive sending the first characters of the http response with an interval.
/// This is a hack for Windows Phone 8 that need reponses within 60s interval.
/// </summary>
private void KeepAlive()
{
try
{
_keepAliveDone = false;
_keepAliveCounter = 0;
while (!_keepAliveDone && _keepAliveCounter < Header1.Length)
{
Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(50)).Wait();
lock (_sendingLock)
{
if (!_keepAliveDone)
{
var sw = new StreamWriter(OutputStream);
sw.Write(Header1[_keepAliveCounter]);
Console.Out.WriteLine("Wrote keep alive char '{0}'", Header1[_keepAliveCounter]);
_keepAliveCounter++;
sw.Flush();
}
}
}
_keepAliveCounter = 0;
_keepAliveDone = true;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// log the exception
Console.Out.WriteLine("Error while sending keepalive: " + e.Message);
}
}
Then, the actual processing happens in a different thread.
Comments and critics are appreciated.
It is possible that you are hitting the timeout of the network stream. You can change this by doing,
var handler = new WebRequestHandler();
handler.ReadWriteTimeout= 5 * 60 * 1000;
var client = new HttpClient(handler);
client.Timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(5);
return await client.PostAsync(serverUri, httpContent).ConfigureAwait(false);
The default on the desktop OS is already 5mins. However, it is possible that on Windows Phone it has been reduced by default.

Linq to SQL TransactionScope

I have the following scenario:
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Required, new TransactionOptions { IsolationLevel = IsolationLevel.ReadCommitted },EnterpriseServicesInteropOption.Automatic))
{
using (DataContext db = new DataContext())
{
db.Connection.Open();
db.Transaction = db.Connection.BeginTransaction();
try
{
bool outcome = InvokeInTransaction<string, object>(inputDict, out outputDict);
db.Transaction.Commit();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
response.Outcome = BusinessEntityResponse.SystemError;
db.Transaction.Rollback();
}
}
}
Inside the InvokeInTransaction call are a number of calls made to a LTS repository to perform various data changes. The problem is that inside the repository there is another
using (var db = new DataContext())
Inside which is the persistence code. Inspecting the context in the repository shows Transaction = null and I suspect that the "inner" context has no knowledge of the Ambient transaction. Can this be done? I understand that EF manages this under the covers, and the constraint is that the repository code cannot be changed. Any help?
We use LinqToSql and TransactionScope for multiple database transactions. You should really control your connection/context/transaction lifecycles if you're going to attempt it.
We control DataContext instances by the rule: If you new one up, you do that with a using statement.
We control connection lifecycles by the rule: If you open it, you must close it (but generally let the DataContext instances manage that).
We control transaction lifecycles by the rule: let DataContext manage what goes on in SubmitChanges and let TransactionScope manage what goes on within its using block.
Here's a code sample:
using (OuterDataContext outerDataContext = GetOuterDataContext())
{
using (InnerDataContext innerDataContext = GetInnerDataContext())
{
try
{
OuterRepository outerRepository = new OuterRepository();
// may read records into memory for updating/deleting.
outerRepository.WorkWithOuterRecords(outerRecords, outerDataContext);
InnerRepository innerRepository = new InnerRepository();
// may read records into memory for updating/deleting.
innerRepository.WorkWithInnerRecords(innerRecords, innerDataContext);
using (TransactionScope scope = new TransactionScope())
{
//starts a local tranaction in outerDB, held open by scope
outerDataContext.SubmitChanges();
//promotes the transaction to distributed, still held open by scope
innerDataContext.SubmitChanges();
// and done
scope.Complete();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
LoggerClient.Log(ex);
response.Message = "It didn't save anything.";
}
}
}

SubmitChanges doesn't save but removes inserts from change set, no errors

I have a deeper question regarding debug functionality of Linq to Sql SubmitChanges() Function.
I want to save a record in a table of a locally cached db (localdbcache: server SqlExpress 2008 client SqlCE). Before calling SubmitChanges I can find the new item via DataContext.GetChangeSet(). After calling Submit Changes, the items to insert have been removed from the ChangeSet. (That's what this function is supposed to do.)
There are no Changes Conflicts and no error in the db's log output. No Exception at all.
The table's Count stays at the same value.
if ((e.Parameter == null) ||
(!e.Parameter.GetType().Equals(typeof(LibDB.Client.Vehicles))))
{
return;
}
LibDB.Client.Vehicles tmp = e.Parameter as LibDB.Client.Vehicles;
try
{
ChangeSet cs = this._dc.GetChangeSet();
if ((tmp == null) || (this._dc == null)) return;
if (this._dc.Vehicles.Where(veh => veh.Vin == tmp.Vin).Count() == 0)
this._dc.Vehicles.InsertOnSubmit(tmp);
else if (this._dc.Vehicles.Where(veh => veh.Vin == tmp.Vin).Count() == 1)
this._dc.Vehicles.Attach(tmp, true);
else
return;
using (TransactionScope ts = new TransactionScope())
{
try
{
this._dc.SubmitChanges();
//this._dc.Refresh(RefreshMode.OverwriteCurrentValues,
// this._dc.Vehicles);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
}
if (this._dc.Vehicles.Where(veh => veh.Vin == tmp.Vin).Count() == 1)
MessageBox.Show("Vehicle not saved.");
this.vehSelector.ResetLayout();
}
I would appreciate any help since I'm loosing hope to find any error,
Thanks in Advance Winston
Does your entity have a primary key defined in the db?
Check the count on a new instance of _dc. You're supposed to dispose it after calling .SaveChanges()
Another way to isolate the problem, is to take a look at the count on the table itself, without using Linq.

Calling wkhtmltopdf to generate PDF from HTML

I'm attempting to create a PDF file from an HTML file. After looking around a little I've found: wkhtmltopdf to be perfect. I need to call this .exe from the ASP.NET server. I've attempted:
Process p = new Process();
p.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
p.StartInfo.FileName = HttpContext.Current.Server.MapPath("wkhtmltopdf.exe");
p.StartInfo.Arguments = "TestPDF.htm TestPDF.pdf";
p.Start();
p.WaitForExit();
With no success of any files being created on the server. Can anyone give me a pointer in the right direction? I put the wkhtmltopdf.exe file at the top level directory of the site. Is there anywhere else it should be held?
Edit: If anyone has better solutions to dynamically create pdf files from html, please let me know.
Update:
My answer below, creates the pdf file on the disk. I then streamed that file to the users browser as a download. Consider using something like Hath's answer below to get wkhtml2pdf to output to a stream instead and then send that directly to the user - that will bypass lots of issues with file permissions etc.
My original answer:
Make sure you've specified an output path for the PDF that is writeable by the ASP.NET process of IIS running on your server (usually NETWORK_SERVICE I think).
Mine looks like this (and it works):
/// <summary>
/// Convert Html page at a given URL to a PDF file using open-source tool wkhtml2pdf
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Url"></param>
/// <param name="outputFilename"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
public static bool HtmlToPdf(string Url, string outputFilename)
{
// assemble destination PDF file name
string filename = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ExportFilePath"] + "\\" + outputFilename + ".pdf";
// get proj no for header
Project project = new Project(int.Parse(outputFilename));
var p = new System.Diagnostics.Process();
p.StartInfo.FileName = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["HtmlToPdfExePath"];
string switches = "--print-media-type ";
switches += "--margin-top 4mm --margin-bottom 4mm --margin-right 0mm --margin-left 0mm ";
switches += "--page-size A4 ";
switches += "--no-background ";
switches += "--redirect-delay 100";
p.StartInfo.Arguments = switches + " " + Url + " " + filename;
p.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false; // needs to be false in order to redirect output
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true;
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardError = true;
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardInput = true; // redirect all 3, as it should be all 3 or none
p.StartInfo.WorkingDirectory = StripFilenameFromFullPath(p.StartInfo.FileName);
p.Start();
// read the output here...
string output = p.StandardOutput.ReadToEnd();
// ...then wait n milliseconds for exit (as after exit, it can't read the output)
p.WaitForExit(60000);
// read the exit code, close process
int returnCode = p.ExitCode;
p.Close();
// if 0 or 2, it worked (not sure about other values, I want a better way to confirm this)
return (returnCode == 0 || returnCode == 2);
}
I had the same problem when i tried using msmq with a windows service but it was very slow for some reason. (the process part).
This is what finally worked:
private void DoDownload()
{
var url = Request.Url.GetLeftPart(UriPartial.Authority) + "/CPCDownload.aspx?IsPDF=False?UserID=" + this.CurrentUser.UserID.ToString();
var file = WKHtmlToPdf(url);
if (file != null)
{
Response.ContentType = "Application/pdf";
Response.BinaryWrite(file);
Response.End();
}
}
public byte[] WKHtmlToPdf(string url)
{
var fileName = " - ";
var wkhtmlDir = "C:\\Program Files\\wkhtmltopdf\\";
var wkhtml = "C:\\Program Files\\wkhtmltopdf\\wkhtmltopdf.exe";
var p = new Process();
p.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = true;
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true;
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardError = true;
p.StartInfo.RedirectStandardInput = true;
p.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false;
p.StartInfo.FileName = wkhtml;
p.StartInfo.WorkingDirectory = wkhtmlDir;
string switches = "";
switches += "--print-media-type ";
switches += "--margin-top 10mm --margin-bottom 10mm --margin-right 10mm --margin-left 10mm ";
switches += "--page-size Letter ";
p.StartInfo.Arguments = switches + " " + url + " " + fileName;
p.Start();
//read output
byte[] buffer = new byte[32768];
byte[] file;
using(var ms = new MemoryStream())
{
while(true)
{
int read = p.StandardOutput.BaseStream.Read(buffer, 0,buffer.Length);
if(read <=0)
{
break;
}
ms.Write(buffer, 0, read);
}
file = ms.ToArray();
}
// wait or exit
p.WaitForExit(60000);
// read the exit code, close process
int returnCode = p.ExitCode;
p.Close();
return returnCode == 0 ? file : null;
}
Thanks Graham Ambrose and everyone else.
OK, so this is an old question, but an excellent one. And since I did not find a good answer, I made my own :) Also, I've posted this super simple project to GitHub.
Here is some sample code:
var pdfData = HtmlToXConverter.ConvertToPdf("<h1>SOO COOL!</h1>");
Here are some key points:
No P/Invoke
No creating of a new process
No file-system (all in RAM)
Native .NET DLL with intellisense, etc.
Ability to generate a PDF or PNG (HtmlToXConverter.ConvertToPng)
Check out the C# wrapper library (using P/Invoke) for the wkhtmltopdf library: https://github.com/pruiz/WkHtmlToXSharp
There are many reason why this is generally a bad idea. How are you going to control the executables that get spawned off but end up living on in memory if there is a crash? What about denial-of-service attacks, or if something malicious gets into TestPDF.htm?
My understanding is that the ASP.NET user account will not have the rights to logon locally. It also needs to have the correct file permissions to access the executable and to write to the file system. You need to edit the local security policy and let the ASP.NET user account (maybe ASPNET) logon locally (it may be in the deny list by default). Then you need to edit the permissions on the NTFS filesystem for the other files. If you are in a shared hosting environment it may be impossible to apply the configuration you need.
The best way to use an external executable like this is to queue jobs from the ASP.NET code and have some sort of service monitor the queue. If you do this you will protect yourself from all sorts of bad things happening. The maintenance issues with changing the user account are not worth the effort in my opinion, and whilst setting up a service or scheduled job is a pain, its just a better design. The ASP.NET page should poll a result queue for the output and you can present the user with a wait page. This is acceptable in most cases.
You can tell wkhtmltopdf to send it's output to sout by specifying "-" as the output file.
You can then read the output from the process into the response stream and avoid the permissions issues with writing to the file system.
My take on this with 2018 stuff.
I am using async. I am streaming to and from wkhtmltopdf. I created a new StreamWriter because wkhtmltopdf is expecting utf-8 by default but it is set to something else when the process starts.
I didn't include a lot of arguments since those varies from user to user. You can add what you need using additionalArgs.
I removed p.WaitForExit(...) since I wasn't handling if it fails and it would hang anyway on await tStandardOutput. If timeout is needed, then you would have to call Wait(...) on the different tasks with a cancellationtoken or timeout and handle accordingly.
public async Task<byte[]> GeneratePdf(string html, string additionalArgs)
{
ProcessStartInfo psi = new ProcessStartInfo
{
FileName = #"C:\Program Files\wkhtmltopdf\wkhtmltopdf.exe",
UseShellExecute = false,
CreateNoWindow = true,
RedirectStandardInput = true,
RedirectStandardOutput = true,
RedirectStandardError = true,
Arguments = "-q -n " + additionalArgs + " - -";
};
using (var p = Process.Start(psi))
using (var pdfSream = new MemoryStream())
using (var utf8Writer = new StreamWriter(p.StandardInput.BaseStream,
Encoding.UTF8))
{
await utf8Writer.WriteAsync(html);
utf8Writer.Close();
var tStdOut = p.StandardOutput.BaseStream.CopyToAsync(pdfSream);
var tStdError = p.StandardError.ReadToEndAsync();
await tStandardOutput;
string errors = await tStandardError;
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(errors)) { /* deal/log with errors */ }
return pdfSream.ToArray();
}
}
Things I haven't included in there but could be useful if you have images, css or other stuff that wkhtmltopdf will have to load when rendering the html page:
you can pass the authentication cookie using --cookie
in the header of the html page, you can set the base tag with href pointing to the server and wkhtmltopdf will use that if need be
Thanks for the question / answer / all the comments above. I came upon this when I was writing my own C# wrapper for WKHTMLtoPDF and it answered a couple of the problems I had. I ended up writing about this in a blog post - which also contains my wrapper (you'll no doubt see the "inspiration" from the entries above seeping into my code...)
Making PDFs from HTML in C# using WKHTMLtoPDF
Thanks again guys!
The ASP .Net process probably doesn't have write access to the directory.
Try telling it to write to %TEMP%, and see if it works.
Also, make your ASP .Net page echo the process's stdout and stderr, and check for error messages.
Generally return code =0 is coming if the pdf file is created properly and correctly.If it's not created then the value is in -ve range.
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Web;
public partial class pdftest : System.Web.UI.Page
{
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
private void fn_test()
{
try
{
string url = HttpContext.Current.Request.Url.AbsoluteUri;
Response.Write(url);
ProcessStartInfo startInfo = new ProcessStartInfo();
startInfo.FileName =
#"C:\PROGRA~1\WKHTML~1\wkhtmltopdf.exe";//"wkhtmltopdf.exe";
startInfo.Arguments = url + #" C:\test"
+ Guid.NewGuid().ToString() + ".pdf";
Process.Start(startInfo);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
string xx = ex.Message.ToString();
Response.Write("<br>" + xx);
}
}
protected void btn_test_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
fn_test();
}
}