I am using Enterprise Library 5.0 in my win-form Application.
1. Regarding creating instances of Enterprise Library objects
What is the best way to Resolve the reference for Logging / exception objects? In our application, we have different applications in solution. So Solutions have below project:
CommonLib (Class Lib)
CustomerApp (winform app)
CustWinService (win service proj)
ClassLib2 (class Lib)
I have implemented logging / exceptions as below in CommonLib project. Created a class AppLog as below:
public class AppLog
{
public static LogWriter defaultWriter = EnterpriseLibraryContainer.Current.GetInstance<LogWriter>();
public static ExceptionManager exManager = EnterpriseLibraryContainer.Current.GetInstance<ExceptionManager>();
public AppLog()
{
}
public static void WriteLog(string LogMessage, string LogCategories)
{
// Create a LogEntry and populate the individual properties.
if (defaultWriter.IsLoggingEnabled())
{
string[] Logcat = LogCategories.Split(",".ToCharArray());
LogEntry entry2 = new LogEntry();
entry2.Categories = Logcat;
entry2.EventId = 9007;
entry2.Message = LogMessage;
entry2.Priority = 9;
entry2.Title = "Logging Block Examples";
defaultWriter.Write(entry2);
}
}
}
And then I used Applog class as below for logging and exception in different projects:
try
{
AppLog.WriteLog("This is Production Log Entry.", "ExceCategory");
string strtest = string.Empty;
strtest = strtest.Substring(1);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
bool rethrow = AppLog.exManager.HandleException(ex, "ExcePolicy");
}
So its the correct way to use Logging and Exception? or any other way i can improve it?
2. Logging File Name dynamic
In logging block, we have fileName which need to be set in app.config file. Is there a way I can assign fileName value dynamically through coding? Since I don't want to hard code it in config file and paths are different for production and development environment.
Thanks
TShah
To keep your application loosely coupled and easier to test, I would recommend defining separate logging and exception handling interfaces, then having your AppLog class implement both. Your application can then perform logging and exception handling via those interfaces, with AppLog providing the implementation.
You can have a different file name set per environment using config transforms, which I believe you can use in a winforms application by using Slow Cheetah.
Related
I am writing here the same issue posted on Github since I don't see much traffic there recently.
.NET Core Version: 3.1.9 and .Net 5
Windows version: 10.0.18363
Does the bug reproduce also in WPF for .NET Framework 4.8?: AssemblyLoadContext not supported
I am trying to load and unload on demand a Wpf App library (and all the related dependencies). Everything works, but none of the assemblies get unloaded when calling the Unload method.
If I replace the Wpf library with a .Net Core library containing a few sample methods, I can see the library removed from VS Modules window after a couple of GC iterations.
If I'm not wrong I should expect AssemblyLoadContext to load WpfLibrary and related dependencies (PresentationCore, PresentationFramework etc), but WpfLibrary is the only one loaded. All the other dependencies seems be loaded in the default context. May be that I misunderstood how it works, but to me seems that the framework dependencies prevent the unloading.
Also I am not sure if the problem I am reporting is related to this and/or this.
I attached a sample project which is structured like this:
Project 1 (MainApp, a console project with added System.Windows.Forms reference to enable message pump)
class Program
{
class WpfAppAssemblyLoadContext : AssemblyLoadContext
{
public WpfAppAssemblyLoadContext() : base(true) { }
protected override Assembly Load(AssemblyName assemblyName) => null;
}
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.NoInlining),]
public static void TestRun()
{
var context = new WpfAppAssemblyLoadContext();
var assembly = context.LoadFromAssemblyPath($"{Environment.CurrentDirectory}\\WpfLibrary.dll");
var inst = (IProxy) assembly.CreateInstance("WpfLibrary.MainWindow");
inst.ShowWindow();
inst.CloseWindow();
context.Unload();
assembly = null;
context = null;
inst = null;
}
[STAThread,]
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TestRun();
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
GC.Collect();
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
}
Application.Run();
}
}
Project 2 (ProxyInterface)
namespace ProxyInterface
{
public interface IProxy
{
void ShowWindow();
void CloseWindow();
}
}
Project 3 (a regular wpf library with implementation of interface in Project 2 )
namespace WpfLibrary
{
public partial class MainWindow : Window, IProxy
{
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
public void ShowWindow() { Show();}
public void CloseWindow() { Close();}
}
}
UnloadWpfLibrary.zip
(Solution file inside "MainApp" folder)
Further updates:
DotNet team added the issue to "Future Milestone", therefore I have to deduce that they recognized this as a bug. I have no idea on when we will see Wpf working with AssemblyLoadContext.
Seems to be that there is a workaround which involve splitting the target assembly into two separate assemblies. I attached the project with the suggested modifications and this time one of the two assemblies is unloaded, but all of the others are still loaded included WpfLibrary.
UnloadWpfLibraryWithWorkaround.zip
I think that for me it's time to give up and recur to IPC (named pipes) although I am not sure if this could be a valid replacement.
May be I missed something and someone more expert can do further progress and attach here the project with the correct modifications, it would be of great benefit for all the users that want to use ALC to load and unload WPF.
It would be a total of 4 projects just to load and unload a wpf assembly on demand and this is not exactly clean, but if the final result is the same it would be acceptable.
I have implemented Specflow to reuse some steps across features as in this example -Specflow,Selenium-Share data between different Step definitions or classes .Since, in our project, we are integrating multiple features & reusing them. What is the best way to share browser session across features if its triggered in between steps as per the above approach?
My Scenario:
Once an application created, I need to launch new session, login different User-set different services and approve it.
But after logging in fails with below error on Step definition 4 in reused Whenstep of Given(Set the service to (.*)). That particular step is from different feature, hence the new session needs to be used in those steps. The LaunchURl method below is just launching the website with url, no new session created - This works fine
OpenQA.Selenium.WebDriverException : Unexpected error. System.Net.WebException: Unable to connect to the remote server ---> System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it "IP here"
[Given(#"A New Application is added")]
public void GivenANewApplicationIsAdded()
{
Given("UK_The Service is set");
Given("User Navigated to New Application screen");
When("User fills up form as in data row 1");
Then("new SID generated");
}
[Given(#"New Browser Launched")]
public void GivenNewBrowserLaunched()
{
SeleniumContext sl = new SeleniumContext();
this.seleniumContext = sl;
}
[Given(#"Login is successful with ""(.*)"" and ""(.*)""")]
public void GivenLoginIsSuccessfulWithAnd(string userName, string password)
{
SuperTests spr = new SuperTests();
_driver = spr.LaunchURL(seleniumContext.WebDriver);
//seleniumContext.WebDriver = _driver;
LoginPage lg = new LoginPage(_driver);
lg.LoginProcess(userName, password);
}
[Given(#"Set the service to ""(.*)""")]
public void GivenSetTheServiceTo(string serviceId)
{
When("Select a Service from the option "+serviceId);
Then("The Services is changed to the one selected " + serviceId);
}
In other feature
[When(#"Select a Service from the option (.*)")]
public void WhenSelectAServiceFromTheOptionTestTeam(string p0)
{
HomePage mst = new HomePage(seleniumContext.WebDriver);
mst.SetServiceId(p0);
}
The 2 work around what we figured was
Create a new instance of binding class to call the methods or steps as shown below
[Given(#"Set the service to ""(.*)""")]
public void GivenSetTheServiceTo(string serviceId)
{
var serIdSteps = new UK_SetServiceIDSteps(seleniumContext);
serIdSteps.WhenUK_SelectAServiceFromTheOptionTest(serviceId);
serIdSteps.ThenUK_TheServicesIsChangedToTheOneSelected(serviceId);
}
or
tried this which worked as well- basically calling a new method to create a new session. for this I need not create any new instance for Binding class. Called the Step directly.
[Given(#"New Browser Launched")]
public void GivenNewBrowserLaunched()
{
SuperTests spr = new SuperTests();
_driver = spr.LaunchURL("Firefox");
seleniumContext.WebDriver = _driver;
}
public void GivenSetTheServiceTo(string serviceId)
{
When("UK_Select a Service from the option "+serviceId);
Then("UK_The Services is changed to the one selected " + serviceId);
}
Not sure, which is correct way of doing it? Trying to figure it out from Reusable steps point?The latter one is not advised as we need to change the type of browser to launch at multiple place.
Note: Cross-posted to ServerFault, based on comments.
Intro
I need to password protect some actions in my application, such as loading/saving files, clicking check-boxes, etc. This is a standard C# .Net 4.0, WinForms application which will run on Windows 7 in a corporate network.
I was about to roll my own very basic system (read obfuscation with wide open backdoors) with a text file of users/passwords/permissions (hashed and salted) until after some searching I found what looks like a
tantalizingly simple approach , but I'm having trouble finding a good tutorial on Roles that isn't about ASP.NET.
Question
So does anyone know of one or more tutorials that show me how to:
Create a Windows User/Group and give that User/Group a Role or Permission.
Note that I'm testing this from my company's networked laptop, but will deploy it on the customer's corporate network (Not sure if this is an issue, or how tricky this will get).
Create winforms/console app sample with even just a single method that prints "Hello World" if I'm authenticated or throws an exception if I'm not?
I've never done Network Admin or anything related and I keep reading about Active Directory and Local Users Vs Networked Users... I was hoping for an approach where I could build to an Interface and just ask Windows if the current user has permission ABC and not care too much about how Windows figured that out. Then I can make a concrete implementation for each Local/Network/ActiveDirectory/etc. use case as required (or if required... as I don't even know that right now).
Background
- read if interested, but not required to answer question
Just to make sure I'm going in the right direction here, basically I need/want to test this on my development PC to make sure it's going to have a good end-user experience for my customer. The problem is that currently they run an Auto-login script for each computer that runs my application and there are several different operators that use my application throughout the day. The customer wants password protection on certain features of my app and only provide that to certain operators. I have no problem fitting this in, as I've expected the request for a while, I just haven't ever programmed authentication before.
I think it's worthwhile to convince my customer to give each operator their own network account and assign whatever permissions they want to that operator or group, in case they need to fire somebody, change permissions, etc. It also means I just open several options for them and they can group those permissions however they see fit based on internal corporate policies, which I really shouldn't have to be worried about (but will be if I have to roll my own, as they're IT department knows almost nothing of my application).
From what I can tell it also makes my life a lot easier by not having to deal with hashing passwords and encryption, etc. and just handle which Role is required to click this or that button.
First of all, you'd have to determine, if you really want a simple role-based-authentication (you may want to read: http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/05/24/dont-do-role-based-authorization-checks-do-activity-based-checks/)
If you're sure it's absolutely sufficient, you're already on the right way with the SO link you provided in your question. It's kind of confusing that there is no support of 'roles' by default in Windows, but there are groups. Groups can be local or remote (e.g. ActiveDirectory), so an admin could assign users to certain groups, that are specific for your application (for an example look here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731200(v=vs.110).aspx)
One key is: You have to prepare your application's central principal, hence fill it with roles, supported for the current user.
Therefore, On the very startup of your application you then check the current active user and set your application wide principal and role(s). This may look like this (just a very simple example):
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Security;
using System.Security.Principal;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace WindowsPrincipalTrial
{
public class Program
{
// you could also move these definitions to a config file
private static IDictionary<string, string> _groupRoleMappings = new Dictionary<string, string>()
{
{"MYAPPUSERGRP", MyRoles.Standard},
{"MYAPPSUPPORTGRP", MyRoles.Extended},
{"MYAPPADMINGRP", MyRoles.Admin},
};
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
var windowsId = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent();
if (windowsId != null)
{
var allRoleNames = getGroupCorrespondingRoles(windowsId);
var newPrincipal = new GenericPrincipal(windowsId, allRoleNames);
Thread.CurrentPrincipal = newPrincipal;
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("There must be a logged on Windows User.");
}
}
private static string[] getGroupCorrespondingRoles(WindowsIdentity id)
{
// you also could do this more elegant with LINQ
var allMappedRoleNames = new List<string>();
string roleName;
foreach (var grp in id.Groups)
{
var groupName = grp.Translate(typeof(NTAccount)).Value.ToUpper();
if (_groupRoleMappings.TryGetValue(groupName, out roleName))
{
allMappedRoleNames.Add(roleName);
}
}
return allMappedRoleNames.ToArray();
}
}
public static class MyRoles
{
public const string Standard = "standard_role";
public const string Extended = "extended_role";
public const string Admin = "admin_role";
}
}
Then your Application-Principal is set up.
Now you could check access in your code like this:
public void DoSomethingSpecial()
{
if (Thread.CurrentPrincipal.IsInRole(MyRoles.Extended))
{
// do your stuff
}
else
{
// maybe display an error
}
}
Or more drastically:
public void DoSomethingCritical()
{
var adminPermission = new PrincipalPermission(null, MyRoles.Admin);
adminPermission.Demand();
// do stuff
}
what is possible even declarative, as known from ASP.NET:
[PrincipalPermission(SecurityAction.Demand, Role=MyRoles.Admin)]
public void DoSomethingMoreCritical()
{
// do stuff
}
The ugly thing with the latter two examples is, that they throw exceptions, when the right role isn't hit.
So the mapping between roles and groups you have to do quite at the start of your app, according to the systems you want to use (local groups, AD groups, LDAP groups etc.).
If you, however, prefer authentication with actions and roles, after all, have a look at Windows Identity Foundation and Claims Based Authorization! There are already some ready-to-use frameworks out there (e.g. https://github.com/thinktecture/Thinktecture.IdentityModel).
UPDATE:
When it comes to activity based and thereby claims based authorization, I will try in short, how you could achieve it, by using Thinktecture's IdentityModel.
Generally that approach still uses roles internally, but has a kind of translation layer in between. Thinktecture already encapsulates many things needed. Authorization checks in code are then done via claim permissions. They are technically kind of request for an access to a certain resource. For the sake of simplicity I limit my example for actions only, by using one single default resource (since ClaimPermission doesn't accept an empty resource).
If you want to use action#resource pairs, you'd have to modify the code respectively.
At first you need a ClaimsAuthorizationManager
public class MyClaimsAuthorizationManager : ClaimsAuthorizationManager
{
private IActivityRoleMapper _actionToRolesMapper;
public MyClaimsAuthorizationManager(IActivityRoleMapper mapper)
{
_actionToRolesMapper = mapper;
}
public override bool CheckAccess(AuthorizationContext context)
{
if (context == null)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException("context");
}
try
{
var action = getActionNameFromAuthorizationContext(context);
var sufficientRoles = _actionToRolesMapper.GetRolesForAction(action)
.Select(roleName => roleName.ToUpper());
var principal = context.Principal;
return CheckAccessInternal(sufficientRoles, principal);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
return false;
}
}
protected virtual bool CheckAccessInternal(IEnumerable<string> roleNamesInUpperCase, IClaimsPrincipal principal)
{
var result = principal.Identities.Any(identity =>
identity.Claims
.Where(claim => claim.ClaimType.Equals(identity.RoleClaimType))
.Select(roleClaim => roleClaim.Value.ToUpper())
.Any(roleName => roleNamesInUpperCase.Contains(roleName)));
return result;
}
// I'm ignoring resources here, modify this, if you need'em
private string getActionNameFromAuthorizationContext(AuthorizationContext context)
{
return context.Action
.Where(claim => claim.ClaimType.Equals(ClaimPermission.ActionType))
.Select(claim => claim.Value)
.FirstOrDefault();
}
}
As you may have guessed, IActivityRoleMapper is an interface for a class, that returns the names of all roles, that include permission for a given action.
This class is very individual and I guess you'll find your way implementing it, because it's not the point here. You could do it by hardcoding, loading from xml or from a database. Also you would have to change/extend it, if you wanted to you action#resource pairs for permission requests.
Then you'd have to change the code in main() method to:
using Thinktecture.IdentityModel;
using Thinktecture.IdentityModel.Claims;
using Microsoft.IdentityModel.Web;
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
var windowsId = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent();
if (windowsId != null)
{
var rolesAsClaims = getGroupCorrespondingRoles(windowsId)
.Select(role => new Claim(ClaimTypes.Role, role))
.ToList();
// just if you want, remember the username
rolesAsClaims.Add(new Claim(ClaimTypes.Name, windowsId.Name));
var newId = new ClaimsIdentity(rolesAsClaims, null, ClaimTypes.Name, ClaimTypes.Role);
var newPrincipal = new ClaimsPrincipal(new ClaimsIdentity[] { newId });
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.SetThreadPrincipal(newPrincipal);
var roleMapper = new ActivityRoleMapper(); // you have to implement
// register your own authorization manager, so IdentityModel will use it per default
FederatedAuthentication.ServiceConfiguration.ClaimsAuthorizationManager = new MyClaimsAuthorizationManager(roleMapper);
}
else
{
throw new NotSupportedException("There must be a logged on Windows User.");
}
}
Finally you can check access this way:
public const string EmptyResource = "myapplication";
public void DoSomethingRestricted()
{
if (!ClaimPermission.CheckAccess("something_restricted", EmptyResource))
{
// error here
}
else
{
// do your really phat stuff here
}
}
Or again, with exceptions:
private static ClaimPermission RestrictedActionPermission = new ClaimPermission(EmptyResource, "something_restricted");
public void DoSomethingRestrictedDemand()
{
RestrictedActionPermission.Demand();
// play up, from here!
}
Declarative:
[ClaimPermission(SecurityAction.Demand, Operation = "something_restricted", Resource = EmptyResource)]
public void DoSomethingRestrictedDemand2()
{
// dostuff
}
Hope this helps.
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);
}
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