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've written a WPF app that has two different main windows. I don't know which one to launch until runtime by looking up what kind of user is using the program in a database. The code I currently have works but Castle Windsor is doing tons of extra work by newing up the object graphs for both kinds of windows.
private readonly IMainWindow _mainWindow;
private readonly ISimplifiedMainWindow _simplifiedMainWindow;
public MainClass(
IMainWindow mainWindow,
ISimplifiedMainWindow simplifiedMainWindow)
{
_mainWindow = mainWindow;
_simplifiedMainWindow = simplifiedMainWindow;
}
public RunApp()
{ // pseudocode
if (user is fullUser) _mainWindow.Show();
else _simplifiedMainWindow.Show();
}
How do I defer creation of my window objects without resorting to making an abstract factory that will basically duplicate what Castle Windsor does anyway?
A factory is in fact the solution I'd recommend (and a solution I've successfully used multiple times in the past to solve this very problem).
I wouldn't implement the factory myself though, let Windsor do it (via a Typed Factory).
public interface IWindowFactory
{
IMainWindow FullUserWindow();
ISimplifiedMainWindow SimplifiedUserWindow();
//optionally
void DestroyWindow(IWindow window);
}
Now you just need to tell Windsor to build a factory for that interface
container.AddFacility<TypedFactoryFacility>();
// later on, in your installer
container.Register(Component.For<IWindowFactory>()
.AsFactory()
.LifestyleTransient());
and your app code changes to:
public RunApp()
{ // pseudocode
if (user is fullUser) Show(factory.FullUserWindow());
else Show(factory.SimplifiedUserWindow());
}
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.
I am using GWT and AppEngine for a project. I would like to know how can I share data (ArrayList objects)between widgets, so I could centralize the logic and reduce the number of RPC calls to the server.
I have thought of two ways, but I don't know which is better:
1) When I instantiate the widget, I pass the ArrayList object as a parameter, although I don't know how to do that because the widget gets instantiated with :
ThisAppShell shell = GWT.create(ThisAppShell.class);
2) By using a mechanism like eventBus
http://www.dev-articles.com/article/Gwt-EventBus-(HandlerManager)-the-easy-way-396001
When the user loads the application,after the login process is complete, I would like to download a list of employees which should be available for all widgets. This should all be done in the onModuleLoad() method. I would like to download them all at startup because I would like to implement some sort of caching mechanism. For example, I want to have 2 ArrayList instances:
- emplListOnStart which is populated when the application is loading
- emplListChanges, an array on which the user will make modifications from inside widgets.
After the user has finished making the changes (he presses the "Save" button), the two arrays will be compared, the differences will be saved in appengine (via RPC) and also updated in emplListOnStart.
This is the code for the EntryPoint class:
public class ThisApp implements EntryPoint {
ThisAppShell shell = GWT.create(ThisAppShell.class);
LoginServiceAsync loginService = GWT.create(LoginService.class);
private ArrayList<Employee> emplListOnStart;
private ArrayList<Employee> emplListChanges;
public void onModuleLoad() {
RootLayoutPanel.get().clear();
RootLayoutPanel.get().add(shell);
loginService.isAuthenticated(new AsyncCallback<UserDto>() {
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
}
public void onSuccess(UserDto result) {
//Here I should load the emplListOnStart list;
}
});
shell.getLogoutLink().addClickHandler(new ClickHandler() {
public void onClick(ClickEvent event) {
loginService.logout(new AsyncCallback() {
public void onFailure(Throwable caught) {
}
public void onSuccess(Object result) {
//Here the user will get logged out
}
});
Window.Location.assign("");
}
});
}
}
And here is the code for the widget:
public class ThisAppShell extends Composite {
private static ThisAppShellUiBinder uiBinder = GWT
.create(ThisAppShellUiBinder.class);
interface ThisAppShellUiBinder extends UiBinder<Widget, ThisAppShell> {
}
#UiField
Anchor logout_link;
#UiField
StackLayoutPanel stackLPanel;
#UiField
TabLayoutPanel tabLPanel;
public ThisAppShell() {
initWidget(uiBinder.createAndBindUi(this));
initializeWidget();
}
public void initializeWidget() {
stackLPanel.add(new HTML("Manage empl."), new HTML("Employees"), 30);
stackLPanel.add(new HTML("Manage Dept."), new HTML("Departments"), 30);
// Add a home tab
HTML homeText = new HTML("This is the home tab");
tabLPanel.add(homeText, "Home");
// Add a tab
HTML moreInfo = new HTML("This is the more info tab");
tabLPanel.add(moreInfo, "More info");
// Return the content
tabLPanel.selectTab(0);
}
public Anchor getLogoutLink() {
return logout_link;
}
}
Is this possible, or how could this be done better?
Thank you.
I think there are two ways to do it:
Create a setter on your widget to set your ArrayList instances (setData()). You can then call this function in the onSuccess method of your loginService.
Inject the singleton instance of a global EventBus into your widget (using i.e. gin/guice) and fire an event containing your data. In the widget you have to attach an EventHandler for the specific event (i.e. LoadEmplListEvent).
I think both solutions are fine to use.
Solution one creates a tighter coupling to your widget but is easier to implement and I think you should take this route if you only have a small number of widgets where you work
with the data.
Solution is a cleaner approach because it de-couples your widgets from the rest. You fire the event the data in your onSuccess method once and you don't care about the widgets.
The widgets that are interested in the data will make sure that they handle the event appropriately (by handling the event). I guess if you have a lot of widgets that have to deal with the data the second approach is the one to go for.
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);
}