All About ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core 2 Hosting BLOG

Tutorial and Articles about ASP.NET and the latest ASP.NET Core

ASP.NET Core MVC Hosting :: Dependency Injection Into Actions in ASP.NET Core MVC 2.1

clock March 4, 2019 10:15 by author Jervis

In this tutorial, we will see configuration about dependency injection into actions in ASP.NET Core MVC 2.1

The basic idea

Just in case what we are trying to achieve here is not obvious yet, here is an extremely basic layout of the problem. Let’s imagine having two separate services, with two separate implementations.

public interface IHelloService
{
    string SayHello();
}
public class HelloService : IHelloService
{
    public string SayHello() => "Hello";


public interface IGoodbyeService
{
    string SayGoodbye();


public class GoodbyeService : IGoodbyeService
{
    public string SayGoodbye() => "Bye";
}

For the sake of completeness, let’s also include a basic request DTO. It’s not needed at all, but I want to have it just to be able to illustrate that injecting dependencies as parameters will not interfere with regular binding process.

public class RequestDto
{
    public string Name {get; set;}
}

We’d like to consume them in a controller, but rather than doing this

public class GreetController : ApiController
{
    private readonly IHelloService _helloService;
    private readonly IGoodbyeService _goodbyeService; 

    public GreetController(IHelloService helloService, IGoodbyeService goodbyeService)
    {
        _helloService = helloService;
        _goodbyeService = goodbyeService;
    } 

    [HttpPost("hello")]
    public string Post(RequestDto input)
        => _helloService.SayHello() + " " + input.Name;        

    [HttpPost("bye")]      
    public string Post(RequestDto input)
        => _goodbyeService.SayGoodbye() + " " + input.Name;
}

I would want to see the following setup:

[Route("api/[controller]")]
[ApiController]
public class GreetController : ApiController
{
    [HttpPost("hello")]
    public ActionResult<string> Post(RequestDto input, IHelloService svc)
        => svc.SayHello() + " " + input.Name;        

    [HttpPost("bye")]      
    public ActionResult<string> Post(RequestDto input, IGoodbyeService svc)
        => svc.SayGoodbye() + " " + input.Name;
}

Note that the [ApiController] and ActionResult<T> were introduced in ASP.NET Core 2.1. They will actually impact the discussion, but more on that later.

Injection into actions

As I mentioned earlier, contrary to i.e. ASP.NET Web API, where we needed to override some internal components to make this, the basic scenario laid out here works out of the box in ASP.NET Core. The only caveat is that you have to decorate the parameter that you’d like to inject (resolve from the DI container) with a [FromServices] attribute.

[HttpPost("hello")]
public ActionResult<string> Post(RequestDto input, [FromServices]IHelloService svc)
     => svc.SayHello() + " " + input.Name;

We could finish the discussion here, as the goal is pretty much achieved. For example, I could issue a following request

curl -X POST \
  https://localhost:5001/api/greet/hello \
  -H 'Cache-Control: no-cache' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{
"name":"jervis"
}'

and then get the following response:

Hello jervis

However, it is still possible to get rid of the [FromServices] attribute by establishing a reasonable convention. For example, we could easily detect at application startup, when the application model is composed, if a parameter is an interface, and if that’s the case, we would resolve it from the container.

In the past, in ASP.NET Core 2.0, this could be achieved by building an IApplicationModelConvention, registering it, iterating over all discovered controller, then over their actions and then over their parameters, and inspecting those. Then, marking the parameters we’d want to resolve from the DI container with a BindingSource.Services.

This would partially work in ASP.NET Core 2.1 too, however only if you wouldn’t use the new ApiControllerAttribute feature. That feature would validate whether your actions doesn’t inject more than one unannotated complex parameter into an action (which is essentially what we are doing) and throw an exception if that’s the case. That validation happens before our convention would run. The reason for this is that the ApiControllerAttribute feature is implemented as an IApplicationModelProvider which does similar stuff too IApplicationModelConvention – but providers run before the conventions do. So to address that we’d implement a custom provider instead.

public class ActionDependencyModelProvider : IApplicationModelProvider
{
    public int Order => -901; 

    public void OnProvidersExecuted(ApplicationModelProviderContext context)
    {
    } 

    public void OnProvidersExecuting(ApplicationModelProviderContext context)
    {
        foreach (var controllerModel in context.Result.Controllers)
        {
            foreach(var actionModel in controllerModel.Actions)
            {
                foreach(var parameterModel in actionModel.Parameters)
                {
                    if (parameterModel.ParameterType.IsInterface)
                    {
                        parameterModel.BindingInfo = new BindingInfo()
                        {
                            BindingSource = BindingSource.Services
                        };
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

Two implementation notes here – I used the Order value of -901 – that’s because the provider responsible for ApiControllerAttribute uses the value -900 and we’d want to run before it. Another thing is that we check for a parameter being an interface to resolve it from the DI container. Of course you are free to establish your own convention here (especially as it’s perfectly reasonable to have non-interface based dependencies). For example you could have a simple convention that 1st parameter would be bound from body and next ones from the container, or a convention where the assembly from which the Type comes dictates whether it’s a request model or a dependency, or simply some naming convention.

You’d just have to register this provider at startup, and that’s it. In our case the Startup registrations now look like this:

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
    services.AddSingleton<IHelloService, HelloService>();
    services.AddSingleton<IGoodbyeService, GoodbyeService>(); 

    services.TryAddEnumerable(
        ServiceDescriptor.Transient<IApplicationModelProvider, ActionDependencyModelProvider>());
    services.AddMvc().SetCompatibilityVersion(CompatibilityVersion.Version_2_1);
}

And that’s it – you can now use your dependencies exactly as we defined it earlier:

[Route("api/[controller]")]
[ApiController]
public class GreetController : ApiController
{
    [HttpPost("hello")]
    public ActionResult<string> Post(RequestDto input, IHelloService svc)
        => svc.SayHello() + " " + input.Name;        

    [HttpPost("bye")]      
    public ActionResult<string> Post(RequestDto input, IGoodbyeService svc)
        => svc.SayGoodbye() + " " + input.Name;
}



ASP.NET Core 3 Hosting :: ASP.NET Core 3 Preview

clock February 26, 2019 06:50 by author Jervis

ASP.NET Core 3.0 App with .NET Core 3.0 preview 2 release

Before we create the application, first we need to install Visual Studio 2019 and .NET Core 3.0. Let’s first install .NET Core 3.0 SDK.

Installing .NET Core 3.0

To download .NET Core 3.0 preview 2, visit this link. Based on your platform, download the appropriate installer. Once the download is complete, run the installer to install .NET Core 3.0 on your system. The .NET Core 3.0 preview installation will not impact your existing .NET Core version installation.

Installing Visual Studio 2019 Preview

To install Visual Studio 2019 preview, download the installer from this location. Don’t worry. Visual Studio and Visual Studio “Preview” can be installed side-by-side on the same device. It will have no impact on your current stable VS installation.

Visual Studio 2019 offers a completely new project creation experience. Once the installation is complete, let’s open the Visual Studio 2019 preview and create the ASP.NET Core 3.0 app. Select the ASP.NET Core Web Application template.

When you click Ok, you will get the following prompt. Select ASP.NET Core 3.0 and choose the MVC template.

The Visual Studio will create an ASP.NET Core 3.0 based MVC project. The solution structure looks similar to the previous version of ASP.NET Core. However, there is one change with respect to dependencies reference, which is the Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson nuget package.

 

ASP.NET Core shared framework (Microsoft.AspNetCore.App) will only contain first-party assemblies that are fully developed, supported, and serviceable by Microsoft. As part of this change, the following sub-components will be removed from shared framework.

  • Json.NET (Newtonsoft.Json)
  • Entity Framework Core (Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.*)
  • Microsoft.CodeAnalysis (Roslyn)

The project file is now targeting to .NET Core 3.0 and also has a reference of Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson package.

<Project Sdk="Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Web"> 

  <PropertyGroup>
    <TargetFramework>netcoreapp3.0</TargetFramework>
  </PropertyGroup> 

  <ItemGroup>
    <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.NewtonsoftJson" Version="3.0.0-preview-19075-0444" />
  </ItemGroup> 

</Project>

Let’s take a look at the code level changes.

1. Open the Program.cs and you will see the following code. The ASP.NET Core 3.0 templates use Generic Host. Previous versions used Web Host.

public class Program
{
    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        CreateHostBuilder(args).Build().Run();
    } 

    public static IHostBuilder CreateHostBuilder(string[] args) =>
        Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args)
            .ConfigureWebHostDefaults(webBuilder =>
            {
                webBuilder.UseStartup<Startup>();
            });
}

The goal of the Generic Host is to decouple the HTTP pipeline from the Web Host API to enable a wider array of host scenarios. Messaging, background tasks, and other non-HTTP workloads based on the Generic Host benefit from cross-cutting capabilities, such as configuration, dependency injection (DI), and logging.

The above code uses webBuilder which is a type of IWebHostBuilder interface used with WebHostBuilder. But it will be deprecated and eventually its functionality will be replaced by HostBuilder, though the interface will remain.

The biggest difference between WebHostBuilder and HostBuilder is that you can no longer inject arbitrary services into your Startup.cs. Instead, you will be limited to the IHostingEnvironment and IConfiguration interfaces. This removes a behavior quirk related to injecting services into Startup.cs before the ConfigureServices method is called.

2. As mentioned earlier, Json.NET is removed from the shared framework and now needs to be added as a package. Open Startup.cs and take a look at ConfigureServices method

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
    services.Configure<CookiePolicyOptions>(options =>
    {
        // This lambda determines whether user consent for non-essential cookies is needed for a given request.
        options.CheckConsentNeeded = context => true;
        options.MinimumSameSitePolicy = SameSiteMode.None;
    }); 

    services.AddMvc()
        .AddNewtonsoftJson();
}

3. There are some updates to EndPoint routing introduced with ASP.NET Core 2.2. Endpoint routing allows frameworks like MVC as well as other routable things to mix with middleware in a way that hasn’t been possible before. With this, routing decisions can occur earlier into the pipeline so that incoming requests can be mapped to their eventual endpoint before MVC is even invoked. This is now present in the project templates in 3.0.0-preview-2 (Startup.cs -> Configure()).

app.UseRouting(routes =>
{
     routes.MapApplication();
     routes.MapControllerRoute(
         name: "default",
         template: "{controller=Home}/{action=Index}/{id?}");
});

Here, the app.UseRouting() call adds a new Endpoint Routing middleware. The UseRouting replaces many of the features that were implemented inside UseMvc() in the past. The MapApplication() brings in MVC controllers and pages for routing and MapControllerRoutedefines the default route.

That’s it for now

Summary

ASP.NET Core 3.0 will bring some code breaking changes and some of them are available with this preview 2 release. The change regarding ASP.NET Core shared framework to include only those libraries which are developed, supported, and serviceable by Microsoft will definitely reduce the application size by a few bytes. It is the right time to play around ASP.NET Core 3.0 and expect some more changes when the final version comes out.



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: How to Send and Receive Email in ASP.NET Core Using Mailkit

clock February 18, 2019 07:36 by author Jervis

Creating An Email Service

It’s always good practice that when you add in a new library, that you build an abstraction on top of it. If we take MailKit as an example, what if MailKit is later superceded by a better emailing library? Will we have to change references all over our code to reference this new library? Or maybe MailKit has to make a breaking change between versions, will we then have to go through our code fixing all the now broken changes?

Another added bonus to creating an abstraction is that it allows us to map out how we want our service to look before we worry about implementation details. We can take a very high level view of sending an email for instance without having to worry about exactly how MailKit works. Because there is a lot of code to get through, I won’t do too much explaining at this point, we will just run through it. Let’s go!

First, let’s go ahead and create an EmailAddress class. This will have only two properties that describe an EmailAddress.

public class EmailAddress
{
                public string Name { get; set; }
                public string Address { get; set; }
}

Now we will need something to describe a simple EmailMessage. There are a tonne of properties on an email, for example attachments, CC, BCC, headers etc but we will break it down to the basics for now. Containing all of this within a class means that we can add extra properties as we need them later on.

public class EmailMessage
{
                public EmailMessage()
                {
                                ToAddresses = new List<EmailAddress>();
                                FromAddresses = new List<EmailAddress>();
               

                public List<EmailAddress> ToAddresses { get; set; }
                public List<EmailAddress> FromAddresses { get; set; }
                public string Subject { get; set; }
                public string Content { get; set; }
}

Now we need to setup our email configuration. That’s our SMTP servers, ports, credentials etc. For this we will make a simple settings class to hold all of this. Since we are good programmers we will use an interface too!

public interface IEmailConfiguration
{
                string SmtpServer { get; }
                int SmtpPort { get; }
                string SmtpUsername { get; set; }
                string SmtpPassword { get; set; } 

                string PopServer { get; }
                int PopPort { get; }
                string PopUsername { get; }
                string PopPassword { get; }


public class EmailConfiguration : IEmailConfiguration
{
                public string SmtpServer { get; set; }
                public int SmtpPort  { get; set; }
                public string SmtpUsername { get; set; }
                public string SmtpPassword { get; set; } 

                public string PopServer { get; set; }
                public int PopPort { get; set; }
                public string PopUsername { get; set; }
                public string PopPassword { get; set; }
}

Now we actually need to load this configuration into our app. In your appsettings.json, you need to add a section at the root for email settings. It should look something like this :

{
  "EmailConfiguration": {
    "SmtpServer": "smtp.myserver.com",
    "SmtpPort": 465,
    "SmtpUsername": "smtpusername",
    "SmtpPassword": "smtppassword", 

    "PopServer": "popserver",
    "PopPort": 995,
    "PopUsername": "popusername",
    "PopPassword" :  "poppassword"
  }
  ....Other settings here...
}

In the ConfigureServices method or your startup.cs, we can now pull out this configuration and load it into our app with a single line.

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
                services.AddMvc();

services.AddSingleton<IEmailConfiguration>(Configuration.GetSection("EmailConfiguration").Get<EmailConfiguration>());
}

This allows us to inject our configuration class anywhere in our app.

The final piece of the puzzle is a simple email service that can be used to send and receive email. Let’s create an interface and an implementation that’s empty for now. The implementation should accept our settings object as a constructor.

public interface IEmailService
{
                void Send(EmailMessage emailMessage);
                List<EmailMessage> ReceiveEmail(int maxCount = 10);


public class EmailService : IEmailService
{
                private readonly IEmailConfiguration _emailConfiguration;

                public EmailService(IEmailConfiguration emailConfiguration)
                {
                                _emailConfiguration = emailConfiguration;
               

                public List<EmailMessage> ReceiveEmail(int maxCount = 10)
                {
                                throw new NotImplementedException();
               

                public void Send(EmailMessage emailMessage)
                {
                                throw new NotImplementedException();
                }
}

Head back to our ConfigureServices method of our startup.cs to add in a final line to inject in our EmailService everywhere.

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
                services.AddMvc();
services.AddSingleton<IEmailConfiguration>(Configuration.GetSection("EmailConfiguration").Get<EmailConfiguration>());
                services.AddTransient<IEmailService, EmailService>();
}

Phew! And we are done. If at this point we decided MailKit isn’t for us, we still have an email service that can swap in and out libraries as it needs to, and our calling application doesn’t need to worry about what’s going on under the hood. That’s the beauty of abstracting a library away!

Getting Started With MailKit

Getting started with MailKit is as easy as installing a Nuget package. Simply run the following from your Package Manager Console :

Install-Package MailKit

And hey presto! You now have access to MailKit in your application

Sending Email via SMTP With MailKit

Let’s head back to our email service class and fill out the “Send” method with the actual code to send an email via MailKit. The code to do this is below :

public void Send(EmailMessage emailMessage)
{
                var message = new MimeMessage();
                message.To.AddRange(emailMessage.ToAddresses.Select(x => new MailboxAddress(x.Name, x.Address)));
                message.From.AddRange(emailMessage.FromAddresses.Select(x => new MailboxAddress(x.Name, x.Address))); 

                message.Subject = emailMessage.Subject;
                //We will say we are sending HTML. But there are options for plaintext etc.
                message.Body = new TextPart(TextFormat.Html)
                {
                                Text = emailMessage.Content
                }; 

                //Be careful that the SmtpClient class is the one from Mailkit not the framework!
                using (var emailClient = new SmtpClient())
                {
                                //The last parameter here is to use SSL (Which you should!)
                                emailClient.Connect(_emailConfiguration.SmtpServer, _emailConfiguration.SmtpPort, true); 

                                //Remove any OAuth functionality as we won't be using it.
                                emailClient.AuthenticationMechanisms.Remove("XOAUTH2"); 

                                emailClient.Authenticate(_emailConfiguration.SmtpUsername, _emailConfiguration.SmtpPassword); 

                                emailClient.Send(message);
                                emailClient.Disconnect(true);
                }                             

}

The comments should be pretty self explanatory, but let’s quickly run through it.

  • You can send clear text or HTML emails depending on the “TextFormat” you use when creating your message body
  • MailKit has named it’s Smtp class “SmtpClient” which is the same as the framework class. Be careful if you are using Resharper and the like that when you click “Add Reference” you are adding the correct reference.
  • You should choose to use SSL whenever available when connecting to the SMTP Server

Because we built out our EmailService, EmailMessage and EmailConfiguration classes earlier, they are all ready to be used immediately!

Receiving Email via POP With MailKit

And now the code to receive email via POP.

public List<EmailMessage> ReceiveEmail(int maxCount = 10)
{
                using (var emailClient = new Pop3Client())
                {
                                emailClient.Connect(_emailConfiguration.PopServer, _emailConfiguration.PopPort, true); 

                                emailClient.AuthenticationMechanisms.Remove("XOAUTH2"); 

                                emailClient.Authenticate(_emailConfiguration.PopUsername, _emailConfiguration.PopPassword); 

                                List<EmailMessage> emails = new List<EmailMessage>();
                                for(int i=0; i < emailClient.Count && i < maxCount; i++)
                                {
                                                var message = emailClient.GetMessage(i);
                                                var emailMessage = new EmailMessage
                                                {
                                                                Content = !string.IsNullOrEmpty(message.HtmlBody) ? message.HtmlBody : message.TextBody,
                                                                Subject = message.Subject
                                                };
                                                emailMessage.ToAddresses.AddRange(message.To.Select(x => (MailboxAddress)x).Select(x => new EmailAddress { Address = x.Address, Name = x.Name }));
                                                emailMessage.FromAddresses.AddRange(message.From.Select(x => (MailboxAddress)x).Select(x => new EmailAddress { Address = x.Address, Name = x.Name }));
                               

                                return emails;
                }
}

Again, all rather straight forward.

While we only retrieve a few basic details about the email message, the actual MailKit email object has a tonne of data you can inspect including headers, CC addresses, etc. Extend as you need to!



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: How to Set Headers and HTTP Status Codes in ASP.NET Core

clock February 7, 2019 11:36 by author Jervis

I was working on an interesting issue in an ASP.NET Core recently. An external framework was responsible for creating an HTTP Response, and I was only in control of a little component that customized some internal behaviours (via a relevant extensibility point), without being able to influence the final response sent over HTTP.

This is common if you think about extending things like CMS systems or specialized services like for example Identity Server. In those situations, more often than not, the framework would be highly opinionated in what it is trying to do at the HTTP boundaries and as a result, trying to override the HTTP status codes or headers it produces may not be easy.

Let’s have a look at a simple generic workaround.

TL;DR

In ASP.NET Core you can hook a callback to the HTTP response object, which allows you to run arbitrary code just before the response starts getting sent or as soon as it has been sent. This allows you to override status code, headers or even change the response body even if your code is not responsible for flushing the response

// always set the status code to 418
response.OnStarting(() =>
{
    response.StatusCode = 418;
    return Task.CompletedTask;
});

The problem

To illustrate the problem better, let’s have a look at a concrete example – and I think Identity Server is a good choice here.

Identity Server allows you to register your own validators for various authentication grant types – for example client credentials grant, resource owner or even your own custom extension grant.

An implementation of such custom validator could like this:

public class MyResourceOwnerPasswordValidator : IResourceOwnerPasswordValidator
{
    public async Task ValidateAsync(ResourceOwnerPasswordValidationContext context)
    {
        var user = await UserStore.FindAndValidate(context.UserName, context.Password); 

        if (user == null || !user.IsValid())
        {
            // reject as the credentials are incorrect or account invalid
            context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.InvalidRequest, "Invalid username or password.");
            return;
        }        

        if (!user.IsCountrySupported())
        {
            // reject as the country of the user is not allowed
            context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.InvalidRequest, "Country not supported.");
            return;
        }        

        // allow
        context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(user.Id, "password", user.Claims, "idsrv");
    }
}

In other words, we validate the user, and allow the token to be issued if the username and password are correct. If not, we will produce a token request error; in addition to that we also produce a different error if the user credentials are correct but the country is not supported.

This is all nice and fine. We have no touchpoints to the HTTP response here, as Identity Server (or any other framework/service that we might be using) would take care of that for us. We only produce the result that we are mandated to produce by the contract – a GrantValidationResult in this case.

It works well in most situations. However, let’s imagine that we’d like to influence the HTTP status codes being returned from this validation code. At the moment the status codes are hidden from us, and it is the responsibility of Identity Server to produce them.

In our case, the Identity Server would actually be returning 2 different ones:

  • GrantValidationResult(user.Id, “password”, user.Claims, “idsrv”) would obviously produce a 200 and result in a token being sent to the user
  • GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.InvalidRequest, “{ERROR DESCRIPTION}”) would produce a 400 and convey the error description to the caller in the error_description JSON property of the response (as defined by the spec).

Now let’s imagine the situation, that for the code path of user.IsCountrySupported(), we’d like to use HTTP status code 451 instead. This is allowed by the spec, which states “the authorization server responds with an HTTP 400 (Bad Request) status code (unless specified otherwise)”. However, such status code customization is currently not supported by Identity Server.

Let’s have a look at addressing this via a neat ASP.NET Core feature. Before we get there – in case you don’t agree with this spec interpretation – remember that this is merely an example to illustrate that ASP.NET Core feature.

Wrong way to deal with it

There are several ideas of dealing with this, that come to mind straight away.

One naive approach would be to try to throw an exception, let it bubble up as far as possible and then handle it in a way that you can convert the response to the relevant HTTP status code (perhaps with a global handler registered in your Startup class). This, however, wouldn’t work with Identity Server, as it handles all exceptions in the pipeline on its own, without letting it bubble up. In fact, this would typically be the case with most frameworks or services of that sort, not to mention using exceptions for flow control is iffy at best.

Another approach could be to try to write a middleware component, that runs at the end of HTTP pipeline (so wraps the Identity Server middleware) and use it to change the status code. This seems like a great idea at first, but unfortunately it wouldn’t work.

The reason for that is that ASP.NET Core would flush the headers of the response as soon as the first body write happens, and Identity Server, in its pipeline, would start writing to the body already. This means that even though you can technically (there would be no exception thrown for that) change the status code on the response, or inject some headers into it using a custom middleware that runs at the end of the pipeline, that would have no effect on the response anymore, as it is simply too late. You can actually normally see that on the response object by inspecting the response.HasStarted property – at that moment status code and headers modifications are not possible anymore.

One other idea could be to hijack the response writing completely. Since you can inject IHttpContextAccessor to any class, anywhere in the ASP.NET Core application, you can fairly easily get a hold of the HttpResponse. This allows you to simply write to the HTTP response directly. Such approach could possibly work but it is not very elegant to say the least. It would require you to correctly produce the entire set of headers (also the more esoteric ones like Cache-Control and so on) and the status code correctly and flush it before Identity Server can do that, allowing it to only complete the response by writing the body. This is very error prone and very unmaintainable.

Simple solution

A simple and elegant solution is to leverage a little known feature of ASP.NET Core – the ability to register your own callback on the HttpResponse, that would run as soon as the response is started to be sent (or as soon as its completed).

The following hooks exist on the HttpResponse:

/// <summary>
/// Adds a delegate to be invoked just before response headers will be sent to the client.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="callback">The delegate to execute.</param>
/// <param name="state">A state object to capture and pass back to the delegate.</param>
public abstract void OnStarting(Func<object, Task> callback, object state); 

/// <summary>
/// Adds a delegate to be invoked just before response headers will be sent to the client.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="callback">The delegate to execute.</param>
public virtual void OnStarting(Func<Task> callback) => OnStarting(_callbackDelegate, callback); 

/// <summary>
/// Adds a delegate to be invoked after the response has finished being sent to the client.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="callback">The delegate to invoke.</param>
/// <param name="state">A state object to capture and pass back to the delegate.</param>
public abstract void OnCompleted(Func<object, Task> callback, object state); 

/// <summary>
/// Adds a delegate to be invoked after the response has finished being sent to the client.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="callback">The delegate to invoke.</param>
public virtual void OnCompleted(Func<Task> callback) => OnCompleted(_callbackDelegate, callback);

This means we can simply register a delegate that would change the HTTP Status Code, modify the headers and possibly even meddle with the response body, from any point in the ASP.NET Core application. Then, as soon as the response starts being sent (irrespective to the fact which component or part of the pipeline triggered that), our code would run, allowing us to influence the structure of that response.

It is extremely convenient, as we are able to create de facto extensibility points for 3rd party applications, frameworks or services (like Identity Server), in places where they normally don’t exist.

In our case, the final code looks like this:

public static class HttpResponseExtensions
{
    public static void SetHttpStatusCodeOverride(this HttpResponse response, int httpStatusCode)
    {
        response.OnStarting(() =>
        {
            response.StatusCode = httpStatusCode;
            return Task.CompletedTask;
        });
    }


public class MyResourceOwnerPasswordValidator : IResourceOwnerPasswordValidator
{
   private readonly IHttpContextAccessor _httpContextAccessor;  

   public MyResourceOwnerPasswordValidator(IHttpContextAccessor httpContextAccessor)
   {
       _httpContextAccessor = httpContextAccessor;
   } 

    public async Task ValidateAsync(ResourceOwnerPasswordValidationContext context)
    {
        var user = await UserStore.FindAndValidate(context.UserName, context.Password); 

        if (user == null || !user.IsValid())
        {
            // default 400
            // reject as the credentials are incorrect or account invalid
            context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.InvalidRequest, "Invalid username or password.");
            return;
        }        

        if (!user.IsCountrySupported())
        {
            // overridden to 451
            // reject as the country of the user is not allowed
           _httpContextAccessor.HttpContext.Response.SetHttpStatusCodeOverride(451);
            context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(TokenRequestErrors.InvalidRequest, "Country not supported.");
            return;
        }        

        // allow
        context.Result = new GrantValidationResult(user.Id, "password", user.Claims, "idsrv");
    }
}

I hope you will find this technique useful – I used Identity Server as an example, because it actually solves a real world problem here – but I think you could apply this approach in various places where you’d like to have a certain response-based extensibility point and it’s simply not available.



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: How to Implement Action Filters in ASP.NET Core

clock January 28, 2019 08:50 by author Jervis

Filters in .NET offer a great way to hook into the MVC action invocation pipeline. Therefore, we can use filters to extract code which can be reused and make our actions cleaner and maintainable. There are some filters that are already provided by .NET like the authorization filter, and there are the custom ones that we can create ourselves.

There are different filter types:

  • Authorization filters – They run first to determine whether a user is authorized for the current request
  • Resource filters – They run right after the authorization filters and are very useful for caching and performance
  • Action filters – They run right before and after the action method execution
  • Exception filters – They are used to handle exceptions before the response body is populated
  • Result filters – They run before and after the execution of the action methods result.

In this article, we are going to talk about Action filters and how to use them to create a cleaner and reusable code in our Web API’s.

Action Filters Implementation

To create an Acton filter, we need to create a class that inherits either from the IActionFilter interface or IAsyncActionFilter interface or from the ActionFilterAttribute class which is the implementation of the IActionFilterIAsyncActionFilter, and few different interfaces as well:

public abstract class ActionFilterAttribute : Attribute, IActionFilter, IFilterMetadata, IAsyncActionFilter, IResultFilter, IAsyncResultFilter, IOrderedFilter

In our examples, we are going to inherit from the IActionFIlter interface because it has all the method definitions we require.

To implement the synchronous Action filter that runs before and after action method execution, we need to implement OnActionExecuting and OnActionExecuted methods:

namespace ActionFilters.Filters
{
    public class ActionFilterExample : IActionFilter
    {
        public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
        {
            // our code before action executes
        } 

        public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
        {
            // our code after action executes
        }
    }
}

We can do the same thing with an asynchronous filter by inheriting from IAsyncActionFilter, but we only have one method to implement the OnActionExecutionAsync:

namespace ActionFilters.Filters
{
    public class AsyncActionFilterExample : IAsyncActionFilter
    {
        public async Task OnActionExecutionAsync(ActionExecutingContext context, ActionExecutionDelegate next)
        {
            // execute any code before the action executes
            var result = await next();
            // execute any code after the action executes
        }
    }
}

The Scope of Action Filters

Like the other types of filters, the action filter can be added to different scope levels: Global, Action, Controller.

If we want to use our filter globally, we need to register it inside the AddMvc() method in the ConfigureServices method:

services.AddMvc(
  config =>
  {
     config.Filters.Add(new GlobalFilterExample());
  });

But if we want to use our filter as a service type on the Action or Controller level, we need to register it in the same ConfigureServices method but as a service in the IoC container:

services.AddScoped<ActionFilterExample>();
services.AddScoped<ControllerFilterExample>();

Finally, to use a filter registered on the Action or Controller level, we need to place it on top of the Controller or Action as a ServiceType:

namespace AspNetCore.Controllers
{
    [ServiceFilter(typeof(ControllerFilterExample))]
    [Route("api/[controller]")]
    public class TestController : Controller
    {
        [HttpGet]
        [ServiceFilter(typeof(ActionFilterExample))]
        public IEnumerable<string> Get()
        {
            return new string[] { "example", "data" };
        } 

    }
}

Order of Invocation

The order in which our filters are executed is as follows:

Of course, we can change the order of invocation by adding an additional property Order to the invocation statement:

namespace AspNetCore.Controllers
{
    [ServiceFilter(typeof(ControllerFilterExample), Order=2)]
    [Route("api/[controller]")]
    public class TestController : Controller
    {
        [HttpGet]
        [ServiceFilter(typeof(ActionFilterExample), Order=1)]
        public IEnumerable<string> Get()
        {
            return new string[] { "example", "data" };
        } 

    }
}

Or something like this on top of the same action:

[HttpGet]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ActionFilterExample), Order=2)]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ActionFilterExample2), Order=1)]
public IEnumerable<string> Get()
{
    return new string[] { "example", "data" };
}

Improving the Code with Action Filters

If we open the starting project from the AppStart folder from our repository, we can find the MoveController class in the Controllers folder. This controller has an implementation for all the CRUD operations. For the sake of simplicity, we haven’t used any additional layers for our API. 

Our actions are quite clean and readable without try-catch blocks due to global exception handling, but we can improve them even further.

The important thing to notice is that our Movie model inherits from the IEntity interface:

[Table("Movie")]
public class Movie: IEntity
{
    [Key]
    public Guid Id { get; set; }
    [Required(ErrorMessage = "Name is required")]
    public string Name { get; set; }
    [Required(ErrorMessage = "Genre is required")]
    public string Genre { get; set; }
    [Required(ErrorMessage = "Director is required")]
    public string Director { get; set; }
}

So let’s start with the validation code from the POST and PUT actions.

Validation with Action Filters

If we look at our POST and PUT actions, we can notice the repeated code in which we validate our Movie model:

if (movie == null)
{
     return BadRequest("Movie object is null");


if (!ModelState.IsValid)
{
     return BadRequest(ModelState);
}

We can extract that code into a custom Action Filter class, thus making this code reusable and the action cleaner.

So let’s do that.

Let’s create a new folder in our solution explorer, and name it ActionFilters. Then inside that folder, we are going to create a new class ValidationFilterAttribute:

using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Filters; 

namespace ActionFilters.ActionFilters
{
    public class ValidationFilterAttribute : IActionFilter
    {
        public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
        {            

        } 

        public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
        {            

        }
    }
}

Now we are going to modify the OnActionExecuting method to validate our model:

using ActionFilters.Contracts;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Filters;
using System.Linq; 

namespace ActionFilters.ActionFilters
{
    public class ValidationFilterAttribute : IActionFilter
    {
        public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
        {
            var param = context.ActionArguments.SingleOrDefault(p => p.Value is IEntity);
            if(param.Value == null)
            {
                context.Result = new BadRequestObjectResult("Object is null");
                return;
            }            

            if(!context.ModelState.IsValid)
            {
                context.Result = new BadRequestObjectResult(context.ModelState);
            }
        } 

        public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
        {          
        }
    }
}

Next, let’s register this action filter in the ConfigureServices method:

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
       services.AddDbContext<MovieContext>(options =>
           options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetConnectionString("sqlConString"))); 

       services.AddScoped<ValidationFilterAttribute>(); 

       services.AddMvc();
}

Finally, let’s remove that validation code from our actions and call this action filter as a service:

[HttpPost]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ValidationFilterAttribute))]
public IActionResult Post([FromBody] Movie movie)
{
     _context.Movies.Add(movie);
     _context.SaveChanges(); 

     return CreatedAtRoute("MovieById", new { id = movie.Id }, movie);


[HttpPut("{id}")]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ValidationFilterAttribute))]
public IActionResult Put(Guid id, [FromBody]Movie movie)
{
    var dbMovie = _context.Movies.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id.Equals(id));
    if (dbMovie == null)
    {
        return NotFound();
    } 

    dbMovie.Map(movie); 

    _context.Movies.Update(dbMovie);
    _context.SaveChanges(); 

    return NoContent();
}

Excellent.

This code is much cleaner and more readable now without the validation part. And furthermore, the validation part is now reusable as long as our model classes inherit from the IEntity interface, which is a quite common behavior.

If we send a POST request for example with the invalid model we will get the BadRequest response:

Dependency Injection in Action Filters

If we take a look at our GetById, POST and PUT actions, we are going to see the code where we fetch the move by id from the database and check if it exists:

var dbMovie = _context.Movies.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id.Equals(id));
if (dbMovie == null)
{
     return NotFound();
}

That’s something we can extract to the Action Filter class as well, thus making it reusable in all the actions.

Of course, we need to inject our context in a new ActionFilter class by using dependency injection.

So, let’s create another Action Filter class ValidateEntityExistsAttribute in the ActionFilters folder and modify it:

using System.Linq; 

namespace ActionFilters.ActionFilters
{
    public class ValidateEntityExistsAttribute<T> : IActionFilter where T: class, IEntity
    {
        private readonly MovieContext _context; 

        public ValidateEntityExistsAttribute(MovieContext context)
        {
            _context = context;
        } 

        public void OnActionExecuting(ActionExecutingContext context)
        {
            Guid id = Guid.Empty; 

            if (context.ActionArguments.ContainsKey("id"))
            {
                id = (Guid)context.ActionArguments["id"];
            }
            else
            {
                context.Result = new BadRequestObjectResult("Bad id parameter");
                return;
            } 

            var entity = _context.Set<T>().SingleOrDefault(x => x.Id.Equals(id));    
            if(entity == null)
            {
                context.Result = new NotFoundResult();
            }
            else
            {
                context.HttpContext.Items.Add("entity", entity);
            }
        }

        public void OnActionExecuted(ActionExecutedContext context)
        {
        }
    }
}

We’ve created this Action Filter class to be generic so that we could reuse it for any model in our project. Furthermore, if we find the entity in the database, we store it in HttpContext because we need that entity in our action methods and we don’t want to query the database two times (we would lose more than we gain if we double that action).

Now let’s register it:

services.AddScoped<ValidateEntityExistsAttribute<Movie>>();

And let’s modify our actions:

[HttpGet("{id}", Name = "MovieById")]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ValidateEntityExistsAttribute<Movie>))]
public IActionResult Get(Guid id)
{
    var dbMovie = HttpContext.Items["entity"] as Movie; 

    return Ok(dbMovie);
}
[HttpPut("{id}")]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ValidationFilterAttribute))]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ValidateEntityExistsAttribute<Movie>))]
public IActionResult Put(Guid id, [FromBody]Movie movie)
{
    var dbMovie = HttpContext.Items["entity"] as Movie; 

     dbMovie.Map(movie); 

     _context.Movies.Update(dbMovie);
     _context.SaveChanges(); 

     return NoContent();


[HttpDelete("{id}")]
[ServiceFilter(typeof(ValidateEntityExistsAttribute<Movie>))]
public IActionResult Delete(Guid id)
{
    var dbMovie = HttpContext.Items["entity"] as Movie; 

     _context.Movies.Remove(dbMovie);
     _context.SaveChanges(); 

     return NoContent();
}

Awesome.

Now our actions look great without code repetition, try-catch blocks or additional fetch request towards the database.

Conclusion

Thank you for reading this article. We hope you have learned new useful things.

As we already said, we always recommend using Action Filters because they give us reusability in our code and cleaner code in our actions as well.



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: How to Add Custom Processing to Request in ASP.NET

clock January 22, 2019 08:57 by author Jervis

When a request comes in to your ASP.NET site, it's routed through a series of message handlers (in ASP.NET Web API) or modules (in ASP.NET MVC), each of which performs some operation on the request. After a request is processed (presumably, by one of your Controllers), the response from your request goes through those handlers or modules again on its way back to the client.

Putting code in a handler or module allows you to perform some operation on every inbound request or outbound response. So, for example, if you want to customize security for your site, a good way to do that is to add your own module or handler to this chain. Alternatively, if you wanted to check data leaving your Web API site for "sensitive" information, a module or handler would be a good choice for that task, also.

The Limitations of ASP.NET Modules

Of the two technologies, ASP.NET MVC's HttpModules are the most limited. In many ways, modules are legacy technology dating from the beginnings of ASP.NET. However, this is the only option if you really do want to process every request to your site (including, for example, requests for image files and CSS files). You can even use HttpModules in Web API application.

The problem here is that the methods in a module are passed an HttpApplication object that has Context, Request and Response properties. These properties give you access to information about the request being made to your site and the response your site is returning. These are the same objects you have access to in your Controllers and, as in your Controllers, most of the properties on these objects are read-only. So, in an HttpModule you're limited to reading the incoming request or response or adding/removing headers on them.

Creating an HttpModule

Creating a module is a bit of a pain, also. First, you need to declare a class that implements the IHttpModule interface and give it a property called ModuleName that returns the name of your class as a string. You'll also need a Dispose method. Here's the start of a typical module:

public class GenericHttpModule : IHttpModule
{
  public String ModuleName
  {
    get
    {
      return "GenericHttpModule";
    }
  }
  public void Dispose() { }

Your next step is to add the Init method, which returns nothing but accepts an HttpApplication object. In this method, to process incoming requests, you need to wire up a method of your own to the HttpApplication object's BeginRequest method; if you want to process the outbound Response, you'll wire up your method to the object's EndRequest method. Here's an Init method that does both:

public void Init(HttpApplication application)
{
  application.BeginRequest += (new EventHandler(Inbound));
  application.EndRequest += (new EventHandler(Outbound));
}

The signatures of both the BeginRequest and EndRequest methods are the same: The methods are passed two parameters, one of type object and one of type EventArgs. The first parameter is the interesting one because it holds a reference to the HttpApplication object that holds the Context, Request and Response properties. The two methods I would need to work with the code in my Init method would look like this:

private void Inbound(Object source, EventArgs e)
{
  HttpApplication application = (HttpApplication)source;
  // ... process inbound request ...
}
private void Outbound(Object source, EventArgs e)
{
  HttpApplication application = (HttpApplication)source;
  // ... process outbound request ...            
}

You have one final thing to do: To have ASP.NET actually use your module, you need to tell your application about it. You do that in your web.config file with an add element, inside its modules element (IIS 7.0) or its httpModules element (IIS 6.0/IIS 7.0 running in Classic mode). The add element must reference both the name of your class and its type. This element would tie my sample module into the chain in IIS 7.0 (and would do the same in the httpModules element):

<modules> <add name="GenericHttpModule" type="HttpModulesAPI.GenericHttpModule"/>

The Basics of Handlers

Creating an ASP.NET Web API handler is, comparatively speaking, much simpler.

First, you must create a class that inherits from DelegatingHandler. Once you've done that, you override your class's SendAsync method. When a request hits your site, your SendAsync method will be passed the incoming request as an HttpRequestMessage. You have more flexibility here than you do with modules: you can add or remove headers or replace the message's content.

When you've done whatever you want with the incoming request, you call the base class's SendAsync method, passing the request message (there's also a cancellation token involved but I'll ignore it for simplicity's sake). Calling the base SendAsync method passes the request on to the next handler in the chain and, eventually, to your controller.

After your Controller has processed your request, the response message will be returned back through the chain of handlers as an HttpResponseMessage object. That means that your call to the base SendAsync method will, eventually, return the response from your Controller to your handler. Again, you can add or remove headers or replace the message's Content before returning the message to the ASP.NET process that called your delegating handler in the first place. Eventually, that response message will be delivered to the client that made the original request.

Here's the skeleton of a typical handler:

public class GenericMessageHandler : DelegatingHandler
{
  protected async override System.Threading.Tasks.Task<HttpResponseMessage>
          SendAsync(HttpRequestMessage request,
          System.Threading.CancellationToken cancellationToken)
  {
    //...work with HttpRequestMessage...
    HttpResponseMessage resp = await base.SendAsync(request, cancellationToken);
    //...work with HttpReqponseMessage
    return resp;
  }
}

And, in fact, you don't have to call the base SendAsync method at all -- there's nothing stopping you from creating an HttpResponseMessage in your SendAsync method and returning that.

Adding Your Handler to the Pipeline

To have your application use your handler, go to your App_Start folder, open the WebApiConfig file and add your new handler class to the config parameter's MessageHandlers class. This code, for example, adds my handler to the pipeline:

config.MessageHandlers.Add(new GenericMessageHandler());

But I have to be honest here: My experience has been that (outside of security) there are very few operations that I want to perform on every request to my ASP.NET Web API site. As a result, my typical handler begins with a bunch of If statements that check to see if this is a request that my handler should work with. In those scenarios, ASP.NET Web API gives me alternative: I can add the relevant handler just to the specific routes where it's needed.

To do that, I go to ASP.NET Web API's WebApiConfig file in the App_Start folder and add a fifth parameter to the MapHttpRoute method used to define routes (to use this parameter, you must provide a value for the constraints parameter on the method, even if all you provide is null). The handler parameter allows me to specify a DelegatingHandler to be used in processing requests and responses in that route. Here's an example with my GenericMessageHandler added to a route that grabs requests for my Customer controller (as this code shows, to tie my handler into the processing pipeline I also have to set its InnerHandler property to HttpControllerDispatcher):

config.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
                name: "CustomerApi",
                routeTemplate: "api/Customer/{id}",
                defaults: new { id = RouteParameter.Optional },
                constraints: null,                            
                handler: new GenericMessageHandler(){InnerHandler = new HttpControllerDispatcher(config) }
            );

I can, of course, selectively add this handler to multiple routes.

So if you want to add processing to every request that your site gets (or even just some of them), then you don't have to add code to every Controller or Action method in your project. You can, instead, bundle that code into either a module (for ASP.NET MVC) or a handler (for ASP.NET Web API).



ASP.NET Hosting :: Alternative Localization for Asp.Net Core Applications

clock January 16, 2019 10:41 by author Jervis

Asp.Net Core Built-In Support

This is code fragment from official documentation how to localize content using built-in functionality.

App Content Localization

[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class AboutController : Controller
{
    private readonly IStringLocalizer<AboutController> _localizer;

    public AboutController(IStringLocalizer<AboutController> localizer)
    {
        _localizer = localizer;
    }

    [HttpGet]
    public string Get()
    {
        return _localizer["About Title"];
    }
}

And if you are working with Html content that shouldn't be escaped during rendering - you are using IHtmlLocalizerimplementation that returns LocalizedHtmlString instance.

public class BookController : Controller
{
    private readonly IHtmlLocalizer<BookController> _localizer;

    public BookController(IHtmlLocalizer<BookController> localizer)
    {
        _localizer = localizer;
    }

    public IActionResult Hello(string name)
    {
        ViewData["Message"] = _localizer["<b>Hello</b><i> {0}</i>", name];

        return View();
    }
}

View Localization

For the view localization - there is another injectable interface IViewLocalizer.

@inject IViewLocalizer Localizer

@{
    ViewData["Title"] = Localizer["About"];
}

Alternative: Strongly-Typed DbLocalizationProvider

Where is my problem with built-in providers? They all are "stringly-typed". You have to provide string as either key or translation of the resource. I'm somehow more confident strongly-typed approach where I can use "Find All Usages", "Rename" or do any other static code operation that's would not be entirely possible in built-in approach.

Over the time I've been busy developing alternative localization provider for Asp.Net and Episerver (it's brilliant content management system) platforms specifically.

Thought getting that over to Asp.Net Core should not be hard. And it wasn't. So here we are - DbLocalizationProviderfor Asp.Net Core.

Getting Started

There are couple of things to setup first, before you will be able to start using strongly-typed localization provider.

First, you need to install the package (it will pull down other dependencies also).

PM> Install-Package LocalizationProvider.AspNetCore

Second you need to setup/configure services.
In your Startup.cs class you need to stuff related to Mvc localization (to get required services into DI container - service collection).

And then services.AddDbLocalizationProvider(). You can pass in configuration settings class and setup provider's behavior.

public class Startup
{
    public Startup(IConfiguration configuration)
    {
        Configuration = configuration;
    }

    public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
    {
        services.AddLocalization();

        services.AddMvc()
                .AddViewLocalization()
                .AddDataAnnotationsLocalization();

        services.AddDbLocalizationProvider(cfg =>
        {
            cfg...
        });
    }
}

After then you will need to make sure that you start using the provider:

public class Startup
{
    public Startup(IConfiguration configuration)
    {
        Configuration = configuration;
    }

    public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
    {
        ...
    }

    public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostingEnvironment env)
    {
        ...

        app.UseDbLocalizationProvider();
    }
}

Using localization provider will make sure that resources are discovered and registered in the database (if this process will not be disabled via AddDbLocalizationProvider() method).

App Content Localization

Localizing application content via IStringLocalizer<T> is similar as that would be done for regular Asp.Net applications.

You have to define resource container type:

[LocalizedResource]
public class SampleResources
{
    public string PageHeader => "This is page header";
}

Then you can demand IStringLocalizer<T> is any place you need that one (f.ex. in controller):

public class HomeController : Controller
{
    private readonly IStringLocalizer<SampleResources> _localizer;

    public HomeController(IStringLocalizer<SampleResources> localizer)
    {
        _localizer = localizer;
    }

    public IActionResult Index()
    {
        var smth = _localizer.GetString(r => r.PageHeader);
        return View();
    }
}

As you can see - you are able to use nice strongly-typed access to the resource type: _localizer.GetString(r => r.PageHeader);.

Even if you demanded strongly-typed localizer with specified container type T, it's possible to use also general/shared static resources:

[LocalizedResource]
public class SampleResources
{
    public static string SomeCommonText => "Hello World!";
    public string PageHeader => "This is page header";
}

public class HomeController : Controller
{
    private readonly IStringLocalizer<SampleResources> _localizer;

    public HomeController(IStringLocalizer<SampleResources> localizer)
    {
        _localizer = localizer;
    }

    public IActionResult Index()
    {
        var smth = _localizer.GetString(() => SampleResources.SomeCommonText);
        return View();
    }
}

View Localization

Regarding the views, story here is exactly the same - all built-in approach is supported:

@model UserViewModel
@inject IViewLocalizer Localizer
@inject IHtmlLocalizer<SampleResources> HtmlLocalizer

@Localizer.GetString(() => SampleResources.SomeCommonText)
@HtmlLocalizer.GetString(r => r.PageHeader)

Data Annotations

Supported. Sample:

[LocalizedModel]
public class UserViewModel
{
    [Display(Name = "User name:")]
    [Required(ErrorMessage = "Name of the user is required!")]
    public string UserName { get; set; }

    [Display(Name = "Password:")]
    [Required(ErrorMessage = "Password is kinda required :)")]
    public string Password { get; set; }
}

View.cshtml:

@model UserViewModel

<form asp-controller="Home" asp-action="Index" method="post">
    <div>
        <label asp-for="UserName"></label>
        <input asp-for="UserName"/>
        <span asp-validation-for="UserName"></span>
    </div>
    <div>
        <label asp-for="Password"></label>
        <input asp-for="Password" type="password"/>
        <span asp-validation-for="Password"></span>
    </div>
    ...
</form>

Localization in Libraries

You can either rely on IStringLocalizer implementation that's coming from Microsoft.Extensions.Localizationnamespace and demand that one in your injections:

using Microsoft.Extensions.Localization;
public class MyService
{
    public MyService(IStringLocalizer localizer)
    {
       ...
    }
}

Or you can also depend on LocalizationProvider class defined in DbLocalizationProvider namespace:

using DbLocalizationProvider;
public class MyService
{
    public MyService(LocalizationProvider provider)
    {
       ...
    }
}

Both of these types provide similar functionality in terms how to retrieve localized content.

Changing Culture

Sometimes you need to get translation for other language and not primary UI one.
This is possible either via built-in method:

@inject IHtmlLocalizer<SampleResources> Localizer

Localizer.WithCulture(new CultureInfo("no"))
         .GetString(() => SampleResources.SomeCommonText)

Or via additional extension method:

@inject IHtmlLocalizer<SampleResources> Localizer
Localizer.GetStringByCulture(() => SampleResources.SomeCommonText, new Culture("no"))

Stringly-Typed Localization

For backward compatibility or even if you wanna go hardcore and supply resource keys manually (for reasons) stingly-typed interface is also supported:

using Microsoft.Extensions.Localization;

public class MyService
{
    public MyService(IStringLocalizer localizer)
    {
       var header = localizer["MyProject.Resources.Header"];
    }
}

 



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: 5 Reasons to Use ASP.NET Core

clock January 9, 2019 08:33 by author Jervis

When it comes to web application development, there are multiple technologies available to choose from. There are open-source technologies like Java & PHP, and then, there is closed-source technology ASP.NET MVC.

While millions of web developers use ASP.NET MVC to build web applications, but the latest ASP.NET Core framework offers far more benefits than the ASP.NET MVC for web application development.

ASP.NET Core is an open-source, cross-platform framework developed by both the Microsoft and its community. Basically, it is a complete reform of ASP.NET that combines MVC structure and Web API into a single framework.

Why Use ASP.NET Core for Web Application Development?

ASP.NET Core is an emerging, robust, and feature-rich framework that provides features to develop super-fast APIs for web apps.

Let’s take a look at the elements that make ASP.NET Core a right choice for Enterprise app development

1 — The MVC Architecture

Back in the days of the classic ASP.NET, developers had to worry about IsPostBack & ViewState. But with MVC, web application development has become more natural and the workflow also more efficient. In addition, the latest ASP.NET Core framework further helps in developing web APIs & web applications testable in better way, by achieving a clear separation of concerns.

In simple terms, ASP.NET Core makes it easier for developers to code, compile, and test something in either model, view, or the controller.

2 — Razor Pages

Razor Pages is a new element of ASP.NET Core that makes programming page-focused scenarios more productive. In technical terms, Razor Pages is a page-based coding model that makes building web UI easier.

If you’ve ever worked on ASP.NET MVC framework before, then you already know that the controller classes are filled with a large amount of actions. And not only that, but they also grow as the new things are added.

With Razor Pages, each web page becomes self-contained with its View component, and the code is also organized well together.

3 — Provides Support for Popular JavaScript Frameworks

Unlike ASP.NET MVC, the new .NET Core framework provides build-in templates for two most popular JavaScript frameworks — Angular & React (plus Aurelia).

The JavaScriptServices in the new ASP.NET Core provides an infrastructure that developers need to develop client-side apps using the above mentioned JavaScript frameworks.

The JavaScriptServices basically aims to eliminate underlying plumbing to allow developers start coding applications sooner, making it possible to build feature-rich front-end web applications.

4 — Improved Collaboration & Cross-Platform Support

ASP.NET Core is a cross-platform framework, meaning the apps build using this framework can run on Windows, Linux, and Mac Operating systems. In addition, the developers are also free to choose their development OS as well.

In simple terms, your developers can work across Linux, MacOS, or Windows and they can still collaborate on the same project. This is possible with unified experience offered by the Visual Studio IDE.

In short, the ASP.NET Core framework has the capacity to build & run web applications on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS.

5 — In-Built Dependency Injection Support

ASP.NET Core framework provides an in-built dependency injection, meaning you do not need rely on third-party frameworks like Ninject or AutoFactor anymore.

Dependency Injection is basically a pattern that can help developer distinguish the different pieces of their apps. Before the release of ASP.NET Core, the only way to get Dependency injection in any application was by using the above mentioned frameworks (Ninject, AutoFactor). But in ASP.NET Core, the dependency injection is treated as a first-class citizen. What this means is that developers are no longer limited to web applications, and they can leverage new libraries in more event-driven apps such as AWS Lambda or Azure Functions.

Overall, the dependency injection in the ASP.NET Core framework improves the testability and extensibility of web applications. 



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: How to Use StructureMap with ASP.NET Core

clock January 8, 2019 10:26 by author Jervis

This example shows how to use Structuremap dependency injection framework with ASP.NET Core instead of framework-level dependency injection.

ADDING STRUCTUREMAP TO ASP.NET CORE PROJECT

For Structuremap support in ASP.NET Core application we need two NuGet packages

  • StructureMap - core StructureMap package
  • StructureMap.Microsoft.DependencyInjection - adds support for ASP.NET Core

These packages are enough for getting StructureMap up and running.

DEMO SERVICES

For demo purposes let's define primitive messaging service interface and couple of implementations.

public interface IMessagingService
{
    string GetMessage();
}

public class BuiltInDiMessagingService : IMessagingService
{
    public string GetMessage()
    {
        return "Hello from built-in dependency injection!";
    }
}

public class StructuremapMessagingService : IMessagingService
{
    public string GetMessage()
    {
        return "Hello from Structuremap!";
    }
}

We need two implementations to demonstrate how built-in dependency injection is replaced by StructureMap.

DEFINING STRUCTUREMAP REGISTRY

StructureMap uses registry classes for defining dependencies. Direct definitions are also supported but for more complex applications we will write registries anyway. Here is our registry class.

public class MyStructuremapRegistry : Registry
{
    public MyStructuremapRegistry()
    {
        For<IMessagingService>().LifecycleIs(Lifecycles.Container)
                                .Use<StructuremapMessagingService>();
    }
}

ATTACHING STRUCTUREMAP TO ASP.NET CORE APPLICATION

StructureMap is attached to ASP.NET Core when application is starting up. We have to make three updates to ConfigureServices() method of StartUp class:

  • initialize and configure StructureMap container
  • make ConfigureServices return IServiceProvider
  • return IServiceProvider by StructureMap

public IServiceProvider ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
    services.AddMvc();

    services.AddTransient<IMessagingService, BuiltInDiMessagingService>();

    var container = new Container();

    container.Configure(config =>
    {
        config.AddRegistry(new MyStructuremapRegistry());
        config.Populate(services);
    });

    return container.GetInstance<IServiceProvider>();
}

Notice that there is also dependecy definition for framework-level dependency injection. Let's see which implementation wins.

TRYING OUT STRUCTUREMAP WITH ASP.NET CORE 2.0

Let's make some minor updates to Home controller and Index view to get message from injected service and display it on home page of sample application.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using ASPNETCoreTemplate.Services;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc;

namespace ASPNETCoreTemplate.Controllers
{
    public class HomeController : Controller
    {
        private readonly IMessagingService _messagingService;

        public HomeController (IMessagingService messagingService)
        {
            _messagingService = messagingService;
        }

        public IActionResult Index()
        {
            ViewData["Message"] = _messagingService.GetMessage();

            return View();
        }

        public IActionResult Error()
        {
            return View();
        }
    }
}



ASP.NET Core Hosting :: Differences Between Kestrel and IIS Features

clock December 21, 2018 08:47 by author Jervis

The Kestrel web server is a new web server as part of ASP.NET Core. It is now the preferred web server for all new ASP.NET applications. In this article, we will review what it is, how to use it, and the differences between Kestrel vs IIS.

Why Do We Need the New Kestrel Web Server? What about IIS?

If you have been developing ASP.NET applications for a while, you are probably familiar with Internet Information Services (IIS). It does literally anything and everything as a web server. It is infinitely configurable with ASP.NET handlers & modules via the ASP.NET integrated pipeline. It has robust management APIs for configuration and deployment. It is even an FTP server.

The same codebase that has to support the original “.asp” pages from 15+ years ago now also handles new technologies like async ASP.NET. Like most software, as it ages it gets modified over time, they carry a lot of weight and bloat. IIS does everything, but it is not the fastest web server around. Lightweight web servers like Node.js and Netty make IIS look old and slow.

A Chance to Start Over

By creating the Kestrel web server, the .NET community was able to start over from scratch. They no longer had to worry about backward compatibility for technologies that were 15+ years old. They could take all of their past knowledge to build the simplest and fastest web server possible. That is exactly what they did. Kestrel and ASP.NET Core were built for speed.

Kestrel is more than just a new web server. ASP.NET Core & Kestrel combined are a whole new request pipeline for how ASP.NET requests work. Things like HTTP modules & handlers have been replaced with simple middleware. The entire System.Web namespace is gone. Another big advantage is designing a web server to take advantage of async from the ground up. Performance is now a feature of ASP.NET.

Built for Speed

One of the big problems with IIS and the existing ASP.NET pipeline was the performance of it. For most real world applications, the performance is perfectly fine. However, it lagged way behind in benchmarks. The combination of Kestrel & ASP.NET Core has been shown to be many times faster. It is great to see the team putting performance as a top priority.

Granted, benchmarking an ASP.NET request that says “hello world” is not comparable to most real applications that do multiple SQL queries, cache calls, and web service calls in a single request. ASP.NET makes it easy to do most I/O operations asynchronously. ASP.NET Core & Kestrel have been designed from the ground up to take advantage of async. Most real world apps should perform better if the developers follow good best practices around using async.

Cross Platform

If the goal was to get ASP.NET running on Linux, that meant porting IIS to Linux or making ASP.NET work without IIS. Kestrel solved this problem. As a developer, I can write my ASP.NET application and deploy it to Windows or Linux either one. Kestrel works as my web server on both. However, it is still recommended to use IIS, Apache, or NGINX as a reverse proxy in front of it. Next, we will discuss why that is.

Comparing Kestrel Web Server vs IIS

IIS does almost everything. Kestrel does as little as possible. Because of this, Kestrel is much faster but also lacks a lot of functionality. I would think of Kestrel as really more of an application server. It is recommended to use another web server in front of it for public web applications. Kestrel is designed to run ASP.NET as fast as possible. It relies on a full fledged web server to do deal with things like security, management, etc.

Feature Comparison for Kestrel vs IIS

Here is an IIS vs Kestrel comparison of some key features. This should help you better understand the limitations of Kestrel. You can overcome these limitations by pairing it up with IIS or NGINX.



Cheap ASP.NET 4.5 Hosting

We’re a company that works differently to most. Value is what we output and help our customers achieve, not how much money we put in the bank. It’s not because we are altruistic. It’s based on an even simpler principle. "Do good things, and good things will come to you".

Success for us is something that is continually experienced, not something that is reached. For us it is all about the experience – more than the journey. Life is a continual experience. We see the Internet as being an incredible amplifier to the experience of life for all of us. It can help humanity come together to explode in knowledge exploration and discussion. It is continual enlightenment of new ideas, experiences, and passions


Author Link

 photo ahp banner aspnet-01_zps87l92lcl.png

 

Corporate Address (Location)

ASPHostPortal
170 W 56th Street, Suite 121
New York, NY 10019
United States

Tag cloud

Sign in