We Keep Coding

C# ASP.NET Dependacy injection: Determine which 'service' is using another 'service'

We're using ASP.NET core and are running into the problem, that some registered services (from third-party libraries) request a specific 'service' (based on an interface) that has been deprecated.
The problem is that we don't know which libraries are using this deprecated service interface.
What we've done so far is:
create a custom implementation for the service interface
and registered this custom implementation (class) with DI
// Registration
services.AddTransient<IServiceInterface>((services) => new CustomCustomService(Log.Logger));
// Custom implementation
internal class CustomService : IServiceInterface
{
public CustomService (ILogger logger)
{
logger.Warning("!!! CustomService is still being used !!!");
}
}
So now we can see that the unwanted service is being used 'somewhere'.
But is it in some way possible to detect for which service the deprecated service has been created?
I've tried listing the stack trace using
var st = new System.Diagnostics.StackTrace();
logger.Warning("!!! CustomService is still being used !!!" + Environment.NewLine + "{stacktrace}", st.ToString());
But that doesn't seem to give information about the service using the deprecated service...

You can try the following:
var registrationsDependingOnMyService =
from descriptor in services
where descriptor.ImplementationType != null
let dependencies =
from ctor in descriptor.ImplementationType!.GetConstructors()
from param in ctor.GetParameters()
select param.ParameterType
where dependencies.Contains(typeof(IServiceInterface))
select descriptor;
This will query the IServiceCollection for registrations whose implementation type have a constructor argument of type IServiceInterface.
This might not be a bulletproof solution, as types or registrations can more sneakily depend on the service collection (e.g. by calling back into the IServiceProvider from within a registration delegate), but this is likely the best you can do with MS.DI.

So basically - as expected - it's not possible to exactly know which libraries (for which you don't have the code) use a certain dependency.
It's just trial and error ;)
Thanks for the ideas everyone.

Resolve type with explicit instance

I use AutoFac. I have to resolve a type with an explicit instance which I get from another service.
For example: I have an instance of type Client which I get from somewhere (not from the container).
I want to configure the Autofac container so that always when an object of type Client should be resolved, it should return my instance.
Problem is that I don't have this instance at the time, when I configure the container with the Containerbuilder - so I cannot use for example LambdaRegistration.
Is there another solution for solving my problem?

You can do the following:
MyService service = null;
builder.Register(c => service).As<IMyService>();
// Later on
service = new MyService();
Depending on your needs there are quite some variations of this approach possible, such as:
Send a 'setter' delegate to some initialization code that will call the delegate after the service gets created, e.g. MyServiceInitializer.AfterInitialization(s => service = s);
Promote the service variable to a class property and provide that new wrapper to the initialization
Hide access to the service behind specific read and write abstractions, e.g. interface IMyServiceContext { IMyService Current { get; } } and interface IMyServiceSetter { void SetCurrent(IMyService service); }.
Prevent Autofac from accidentally resolving the service before it is initialized by throwing an exception instead of throwing null, e.g. Register(c => service ?? throw new InvalidOperationException("..."))
It's important to note, however, that in general, the creation of components should be fast and reliable. The fact that your component isn't available at startup is likely because it requires I/O to setup. This is a situation should should try to prevent, for instance by hiding it behind an abstraction completely. This allows you to implement a Proxy that allows the real service to be lazy loaded.
Hopefully this gives you some clues on how to solve this.

DI configuration for multiple RabbitMQ exchanges and queues

I'm trying to configure DI for EventBusRabbitMQ implementation. It works perfectly fine for a single exchange, queue..
services.AddSingleton<IEventBus, EventBusRabbitMQ>(serviceProvider =>
{
...
return new EventBusRabbitMQ(connection, "exchange_EX1", "queue_Q1",..);
});
and in the application configuration
var eventBus = app.ApplicationServices.GetRequiredService<IEventBus>();
eventBus.Subscribe<FooEvent, FooEventHandler>;
I want to register multiple implementations with different configurations of EventBusRabbitMQ so i can pick and choose which exchange and queue to target when i resolve for IEventBus.
What i don't want is to be explicit about the implementations since the only thing that differs is just the exchange and queue.
services.AddSingleton<IEventBus, EventBusRabbitMQ_EX1_Q1>
services.AddSingleton<IEventBus, EventBusRabbitMQ_EX2_Q2>
what alternates do i have?

I think the best solution given you have a finit set of implementation is to consider a solution like this:
public interface IEventBusRabbitMQ_EX1_Q1:IEventBus
{
}
public interface IEventBusRabbitMQ_EX2_Q2:IEventBus
{
}
and then change your code to inject the right instance
services.AddSingleton<IEventBusRabbitMQ_EX1_Q1, EventBusRabbitMQ_EX1_Q1>
services.AddSingleton< IEventBusRabbitMQ_EX2_Q2, EventBusRabbitMQ_EX2_Q2>
But there is another solution which is described here
basically is an enricher kind pattern like but I don't recommend it because it reduces the readability of the code.

How should I use appsettings.json config key/values in my ConfigurationServices ASP.NET Core 2.0 on startup?

I'm trying to configure my services for an ASP.NET Core 2.0 app/website.
I wish to reference some key/values from my appsettings.json file, in this method.
I'm not sure if what I'm going is OK or not:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddMvcCore()
.AddJsonFormatters()
.AddCors();
var applicationSettings = Configuration.GetSection("Settings").Get<ApplicationSettings>();
services.AddSingleton(applicationSettings);
// ** THIS IS WHAT I ORIGINALLY HAD, BUT IT'S ONLY SETTING
// THE VALUE IN DI/IOC.
//services.Configure<ApplicationSettings>(options => Configuration.GetSection("Settings")
// .Bind(options));
var foo = new Foo(applicationSettings.SomeSetting);
services.AddSingleton(foo);
}
See how i'm manually adding a singleton and then later, referring a value from the app settings instance?
vs
just configuring ...
So, is either way OK or is there a specific reason for either/or?
Remember -> i'm going to need to inject my settings into controllers, etc...

Technically, you can do either. In both cases, you have the configuration registered and available through dependency injection, so everything can depend on it and will get the configuration instance.
You are also using the centrally set up Configuration there, so you have all the benefits from the configuration stack there, e.g. multiple providers or environment specific overrides.
However, the favor has definitely moved to the IOptions way of consuming custom configuration. It’s the “state of the art” and used throughout ASP.NET Core for literally everything. It also allows you to switch to options that can be updated at runtime. That’s very powerful and might become useful eventually (not necessarily for your specific situation with the singleton, but maybe for something else).
It’s also really easy to set this up, actually shorter than what you tried:
services.Configure<ApplicationSettings>(Configuration.GetSection("Settings"));
services.AddSingleton<Foo>();
Note that, even for singletons, you shouldn’t explicitly create a new instance of it, but let DI handle that. If your class has the correct constructor, dependencies will be automatically injected anyway:
public class Foo
{
private readonly ApplicationSettings _settings;
public Foo (IOptions<ApplicationSettings> settings)
{
_settings = settings.Value;
}
}
Of course, Foo can also have more dependencies here. Since it’s going to be constructed by DI, you can just add more dependencies in the constructor, without having to update some new call somewhere.
If you need to configure certain services with settings that depend on your configuration, you still should not bind your configuration there directly. All of configuration is DI-based, so you just need to inject the right thing; a IConfigureOptions<T>. That’s basically the thing that provides the IOptions<T> to services later. In your JWT case, this could look like this:
// instead of passing an option configuration delegate here…
services.AddAuthentication().AddJwtBearer();
// … we register a IConfigureOptions<JwtBearerOptions> instead
services.AddSingleton<IConfigureOptions<JwtBearerOptions>, ConfigureJwtBearerOptions>();
// … ConfigureJwtBearerOptions could look like this:
class ConfigureJwtBearerOptions : IConfigureOptions<JwtBearerOptions>
{
private readonly ApplicationSettings _settings;
public ConfigureJwtBearerOptions(IOptions<ApplicationSettings> settings)
{
_settings = settings.Value;
}
public void Configure(JwtBearerOptions options)
{
// configure JwtBearerOptions here, and use your ApplicationSettings
options.MetadataAddress = _settings.JwtMetadataAddress;
}
}
This might seem unnecessarily verbose compared to just passing a delegate to AddJwtBearer() but note that this is exactly what happens under the hood when you pass that delegate: An IConfigureOptions<JwtBearerOptions> object will be created that calls your delegate in the Configure() call. So this is really just the same.
Note that for authentication schemes, you might actually set up a IConfigureNamedOptions<T> instead, which is almost the same thing except it can configure the options based on a name. For authentication schemes, that is the scheme name, so basically you check the scheme name in Configure() and then decide how to configure your options.
As for creating singleton instances, especially expensive ones, I would argue that ConfigureServices is the wrong place for such a thing. ConfigureServices is called very early in the application startup phase, when the whole DI infrastructure does not exist yet. So you could not rely on anything when creating your instance. I would also argue that it is still not your job to create the object but you should DI handle the creation of it and as such give it also control over its lifecycle.
If you absolutely need to control when the instance is created, I would suggest you to use the lifecycle events for this: Basically, after the application has set up properly but before a first request comes in, you request the instance of your services and initialize it. That way, you can still have it fully depend on DI, and it won’t be created lazily with the first request.
You can register lifecycle handlers in the Configure method:
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IApplicationLifetime applicationLifetime)
{
applicationLifetime.ApplicationStarted.Register(() =>
{
// application has started, request the singleton here to trigger DI to
// create the instance
app.ApplicationServices.GetService<ExpensiveSingleton>();
});
// …
}
}

Well the problem with that approach is that it will be impossible to load multiple configuration sections through DI. The Configuration API has many features, such as pluggable configuration provides, snapshots, etc.
I would suggest you at least use a class to bind you configuration section against, so DI can inject it based on its type. If you further down the line have need to another configuration class you won't run into issues.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/configuration

How to transfer DI requestscope to an other thread?

Context:
I am using DI in my Web application. (I am using NInject, but hopefully this should not matter)
Some places constructor injection is not possible, for example in my custom log4net database logger (that's not me, who instantiates my custom logger instead the log4net framework). So I am using my DI container there in service locator DP mode, and asking an instance resolve explicitly in the logger code.
Note this is just a sample, in many other cases I had to use NInject as service locator DP instead of constructor injection.
Now the problem:
I have an IAuditContextProvider which serves current request's audit data, like IP etc. The question arises how I configure my DI container to instantiate a concrete provider. So far I've used a request scope (singleton by request) what is supported out of box by NInject.
However recently I faced the fact I had to start a background processing initiated by a request. This is done by
// This is 'outside' it's actually a request serving method running in the request context, btw it is an MVC action method,
// Pseudo code:
var auditProvider = Locator.Resolve<IAuditProvider>()
Task.Run(() =>
{
// I would like to get the very same resolved auditProvider instance here as outside.
// Please note: outer local variables are not solution, because of implicit calls here inside, for example if there is a logging statement here, then the service locator in the custom logger must resolve the very same instance as outside
// Some how I must 'stamp' this thread to be the 'same' as the outside
// request thread in point of view of my custom scope resolver (see below)
}
Note: Configuring the DI container a wide scoped singleton are not solution because of multiple requests are server parallel, and they can not use a common auditProvider.
OK, I thought this is what for custom (resolving) scopes are for. Here is the pseudo code how I am configuring my DI container:
kernel
.Bind(typeof(IAuditContextProvider))
.To(typeof(WebAuditContextProvider)).InScope(dummy =>
{
// Here I have to return a very same object/number/id when in
// 'outside' the request thread, and inside the worker thread.
// This way I hopefully get the very same instance when resolving.
// To be short: I have no idea how?
});

I don't think there is a good answer for your question within the current bounds.
I do have an alternative suggestion - just perform the work synchronously in another process. This would require a form of inter-process communication (IPC) but shouldn't be too difficult.
A simple but effective form of IPC is just writing a record to a database table (acting like a queue) and having a windows service/daemon polling for new records to "process". In this example, you would put a record in the table with the contextual information (user id, etc) and the service would utilize this context to perform the work synchronously, but the workflow would be asynchronous to the Web UI.
This also has a nice side benefit: You can start to build monitoring, retry logic, etc into the service. These things are much harder to do reliably within an ASP.NET model.
You could forgo the database queue completely by using something like message queues/buses/events, but the basic concept is the same.

Update:
Did you try to use closures in C#? Like this:
var auditProvider = Locator.Resolve<IAuditProvider>()
Task.Run(() =>
{
// with closure you'll get that very variable you need:
auditProvider.SomeMethod();
}
You should read whole article about closures by John Skeet and how they can help you together with TPL.
Other useful information:
Such DI is being called as Ambient Context in famous book Dependency Injection by M. Seeman:
A truly universal CROSS-CUTTING CONCERN can potentially pollute a large part of the API for an application if you have to pass an instance around to every collaborator. An alternative is to define a context that’s available to anyone who needs it and that can be ignored by everyone else.
The AMBIENT CONTEXT is available to any consumer via a static property
or method. A consuming class might use it like this:
public string GetMessage() { return SomeContext.Current.SomeValue; }
In this case, the context has a static Current property that a consumer can access. This property may be truly static, or may be associated with the currently executing thread. To be useful in DI scenarios, the context itself must be an ABSTRACTION and it must be possible to modify the context from the outside—in the previous example, this means that the Current property must be writable. The context itself might be implemented as shown in the following listing.
The context is an abstract class, which allows us to replace one context with another implementation at runtime.
public abstract class SomeContext
{
public static SomeContext Current
{
get
{
// Get current context from TLS
var ctx = Thread.GetData(Thread.GetNamedDataSlot("SomeContext")) as SomeContext;
if (ctx == null)
{
ctx = SomeContext.Default;
Thread.SetData(Thread.GetNamedDataSlot("SomeContext"), ctx);
}
return ctx;
}
set
{
Thread.SetData(Thread.GetNamedDataSlot("SomeContext"), value);
}
}
public static SomeContext Default = new DefaultContext();
public abstract string SomeValue { get; }
}
TLS here stands for Thread Local Storage, which can be useful idea for you here.
Also I suggest you to read about OperationContext class, which can be helpful for you if you want to pass some context for your Task, something like this:
// save current context before task start
var operationContext = OperationContext.Current;
Task.Run(() =>
{
// set current operation context inside your Task with closure
OperationContext.Current = operationContext;
// Your work here
}