I Have this code
var loader = EPiServer.ServiceLocation.ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance<IContentLoader>();
I want to get the instance of IContentLoader using constructor injection.
If you're on a recent Episerver version (NuGet package EPiServer.ServiceLocation.StructureMap > 2.0), you should be able to simply:
public MyPageController(IContentLoader contentLoader)
{
// Do something with contentLoader
}
Related
I am trying to use allure report with jbehave on Java using maven. So there is a package that has a java class that we can use to create the allure report.
I only imported that class and I added the class as a reportBuilder for the configuration of Jbehave, just like the code below.
...
import io.qameta.allure.jbehave.AllureJbehave
...
public class RunStories extends JUnitStories {
private AllureJbehave allureJBehave;
...
...
#Override
public Configuration configuration() {
// set path of results
System.setProperty("allure.results.directory", "build/allure-results")
// create AllureJbehave instance
allureJBehave = new AllureJbehave();
StoryReporterBuilder reporterBuilder = new StoryReporterBuilder()
.withReporters(allureJBehave)
.withCodeLocation(codeLocationFromClass(this.getClass()));
// create and return configuration instance
Configuration jBehaveConfiguration = new MostUsefulConfiguration();
jBehaveConfiguration
.useStoryReporterBuilder(reporterBuilder);
return jBehaveConfiguration;
}
}
But I am not getting the information for trends graphs, how can I add those values or add more information to the allure report ?
You might want to check the plugin file (allure.yml) you are using for Allure. in case there is none, you can add your own with the list of plugins you are interested to use and add it to your configuration.
You can also check the read access of your files. If you are using Jenkins (for example), sometimes there is some access rights that are inherited and that can cause some issues when read.
I was developing a pagefactory based framework. I had earlier used pagefactory.initements method to inintialise and move from page to page. Init method basically does the same work as saying Homepage HP = new HomePage(driver);
So it is necessary to use init method in pagefactory?
Will we loose something if we do not use it and instead use new to create a page.
If you are using a Java PageFactory with annotations yes.
The PageFactory.initElements(driver, My.class) command parses the annotations and sets up the Java Proxy classes. If you don't .initElements() none of the WebElements in your class will have locators assigned to them and they will all be null.
You can put the .initElements() in your constructor if you just want to new up a page e.g.:
public class MyPage {
public MyPage(WebDriver driver) throws Exception {
PageFactory.initElements(driver, this);
}
}
You cannot vote on your own post
0
Hi.
I am developing this (http://arg-co.com/SabteNam%20-%20Copy.zip) windows application, and for my DAL I use Entity Framework. But every single extension has its own EntityTypeConfiguration, so I decided to use [Import] and [Export] to add them in OnModelCreating method of my DbContext.The problem here is that, in 'SabteNamDbContext' class which is located on 'SabteNamDataAccess' library, the '_Configs' is not initialized so I cant iterate it and add its items to 'modelBuilder.Configurations'.
In the source code of 'SampleConfiguration' class, I commented out '[Export(typeof(IDbConfiguration))]' but even Uncommenting this part of code, do not cause application to work properly.
Intresting point is that, if I use the following code in 'Main' windows form, the '_Configs' would be initialized :
[ImportMany(typeof(IDbConfiguration))]
public IEnumerable<EntityTypeConfiguration<object>> _Configs { get; set; }
How can this be fixed ?
While I realize this is probably no longer of use to you, we use a variation on this model from OdeToCode, which I advise you read.
In our case, we have created an interface for our extensions in general, not just for the entity configuration like Scott did, which allows us not only to load the configurations, but also factory and test data per extension, add new permission types to the core application, etc.
Our OnModelCreating looks something like this:
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
// load core object mappings
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new UserConfiguration());
modelBuilder.Configurations.Add(new PermissionConfiguration());
// get plugin assemblies
var catalog = new DirectoryCatalog("bin");
var container = new CompositionContainer(catalog);
container.ComposeParts();
var plugins = container.GetExportedValues<IPlugin>();
// load plugin object mappings
foreach (IPlugin plugin in plugins)
{
plugin.RegisterDomainEntities(modelBuilder.Configurations);
}
base.OnModelCreating(modelBuilder);
}
I wrote an overload for my DomainService class. Problem is, when I recompile, it's not showing up as an overload for my DomainContext. What's wrong? Here is a code sample:
[EnableClientAccess]
public class FoodDomainService : LinqToEntitiesDomainService<FoodEntities>
{
public FoodDomainService(CultureInfo cultureInfo)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture = cultureInfo;
}
}
And this doesn't work:
FoodDomainContext _foodContext = new FoodDomainContext(Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture);
I get an error that there is no overload matching that. Am I not allowed to do this? Do I need an attribute of some kind?
You are not allowed to do this. When newing up the context from your Silverlight client, you are not directly intantiating your service. Instead, you instantiate a proxy class that was generated by RIA Services, and that proxy class will then call your service. This is why you don't see your constructor: because RIA did not generate it in your proxy.
Doing what you're trying to do would also implicate that there is a round-trip to the server at the time of newing up that FoodDomainContext class, which is not going to happen, because you need to complete the initialisation of that object before you can do so.
Anyway, instead of that you can create a method called SetCurrentCulture() and then call it after initializing the proxy.
This will not work because DomainContext is generated on client code of silverlight, click on view all folders or jump to definition and you will see that code generated will not contain your extra constructor.
Instead you will have to create a method in your domain service and pass information to server.
public SetCultreInfo(int lang,...)
{
.. set culture info
}
On your client, inside constructor you should call,
public MyDomainContext()
{
this.SetCulture(....);
}
Up until this point, I have been learning IoC/DI with Castle.Windsor using ASP.NET MVC, but I have a side project that is being done in Windows Forms, and I was wondering if there is an effective way to use it for that.
My problem is in the creation of forms, services, etc. In ASP.NET MVC, there is a sort of 'Activator' that does this under the hood, but this isn't the case in Windows Forms. I have to create a new Form like var form = new fclsMain();, so a Form like ..
class fclsMain : System.Windows.Forms.Form
{
private readonly ISomeRepository<SomeClass> someRepository;
fclsMain(ISomeRepository<SomeClass> someRepository)
{
this.someRepository = someRepository;
}
}
Falls kind of short. I would basically have to do ...
var form = new fclsMain(IoC.Resolve<ISomeRepository<SomeClass>);
Which as I have had pointed out in at least three of my questions isn't smart, because it's supposedly not the 'correct' usage of IoC.
So how do I work with Castle.Windsor and Windows Forms? Is there some way to design a Form Activator or something? I'm really lost, if I can't make a static IoC container that I can resolve from, what can I do?
Here you are doing something that are not very "Dependency Injection"...
var form = new fclsMain(IoC.Resolve<ISomeRepository<SomeClass>);
The "new" is the problem...
You have to call
var form = IoC.Resolve<fcls>();
the form of type fcls must be correctly configured via Fluent Registration API o
In order to use the same Castle container throughout your entire application, create a static class like:
public static class CastleContainer {
private static IWindsorContainer container;
public static IWindsorContainer Instance {
get {
if (container == null) {
container = new WindsorContainer();
}
return container;
}
// exposing a setter alleviates some common component testing problems
set { container = value; }
}
// shortcut to make your life easier :)
public static T Resolve<T>() {
return Instance.Resolve<T>();
}
public static void Dispose() {
if (container != null)
container.Dispose();
container = null;
}
}
Then register/install all your components in the Main() method. You can also hook into the application shutdown event to call Dispose() (although this isn't critical).
Castle actually uses a Windows Forms app in their quick-start guide.
Edit:
The pattern I showed above is a variant of the service locator, which some people refer to as an anti-pattern. It has a bad reputation because, among other reasons, it liters your code base with references to Windsor. Ideally, you should only have a single call to container.Resolve<...>() to create your root form. All other services & forms are injected via constructors.
Realistically, you'll probably need a few more calls to Resolve, especially if you don't want to load every single corner of the application at startup. In the web world, the best practice is to hand off the container to the web framework. In the Windows Forms world you'll need to implement your own service locator, like above. (Yes, handing the container to the ASP.NET MVC framework is still a service locator pattern).
I've edited the above code example so that the static container is injectable; no resources are tied up in a static context. If you do end up creating your own service locator, you might also want to create a test utility like this one to make testing easier.
public static class TestUtilities
{
public static IContainer CreateContainer(Action<IContainer> extraConfig = null)
{
var container = new WindsorContainer();
// 1. Setup common mocks to override prod configuration
// 2. Setup specific mocks, when provided
if (extraConfig != null)
extraConfig(container);
// 3. Configure container with production installers
CastleContainer.Instance = container;
return container;
}
}
This makes a shortcut for creating a new container that looks a lot like the production version, but with some services replaced with mocks. Some example tests might look like:
[Test]
public void SubComponentWorksGreat()
{
using (var container = TestUtilities.CreateContainer())
{
var subComponent = container.Resolve<SubComponent>();
// test it...
}
}
[Test]
public void SubComponentWorksGreatWithMocks()
{
var repoMock = new Mock<IRepository>();
using (var container = TestUtilities.CreateContainer(c =>
c.Register(Component.For<IRepository>().Instance(repoMock.Object))))
{
var subComponent = container.Resolve<SubComponent>();
// test it with all IRepository instances mocked...
}
}
One last note. Creating a full container for every test can get expensive. Another option is to create the full container but only using nested containers for the actual tests.
You don't "have to" new-up a form, as you've said.
I use WinForms and never call "new FormName()". It's always a dependency itself. Otherwise I'd have to stuff the constructor full of service locator calls.
I might use a ServiceLocator (as in another answer) BUT only at the very top level.
For example I have a Command pattern implemented to intercept toolbar buttons.
Looks something like this:
public void Handle(string commandName)
{
var command = IoC.Resolve<ICommand>(RegisteredCommands[commandName]);
command.Execute();
}
Then, in a simplified case, this is the kind of code written everywhere else:
public class ShowOptionsCommand : Command, ICommand
{
private readonly IOptionsView _optionsView;
public ShowOptionsCommand(IOptionsView optionsView)
{
_optionsView = optionsView;
}
public void Execute()
{
_optionsView.Show();
}
}
Yes, I use a "service locator" but you will hardly ever see it.
That's important to me, because having service locator calls all throughout the code (eg in every class) defeats some of the point of using dependency inversion of control & needs extra work to be testable etc