We Keep Coding

How to avoid using using BuildServiceProvider method at multiple places?

I have a legacy Asp.net Core 3.1 application which uses Kestrel server and all our GET and POST calls works fine. We have bunch of middlewares already on my legacy application and we use each of those middlewares for different purpose depending on what is the endpoint.
This is how our legacy application is setup as shown below. I have tried to keep things simple by keeping only important things.
Below is our BaseMiddleware class which is extended by bunch of other middlewares we have. Approx we have 10+ middlewares extending BaseMiddleware class -
BaseMiddleware.cs
public abstract class BaseMiddleware {
protected static ICatalogService catalogService;
protected static ICustomerService customerService;
private static IDictionary <string, Object> requiredServices;
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public abstract bool IsCorrectEndpoint(HttpContext context);
public abstract string GetEndpoint(HttpContext context);
public abstract Task HandleRequest(HttpContext context);
public BaseMiddleware(RequestDelegate next) {
var builder = new StringBuilder("");
var isMissingService = false;
foreach(var service in requiredServices) {
if (service.Value == null) {
isMissingService = true;
builder.Append(service.Key).Append(", ");
}
}
if (isMissingService) {
var errorMessage = builder.Append("cannot start server.").ToString();
throw new Exception(errorMessage);
}
_next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context) {
if (IsCorrectEndpoint(context)) {
try {
await HandleRequest(context);
} catch (Exception ex) {
// handle exception here
return;
}
return;
}
await _next.Invoke(context);
}
public static void InitializeDependencies(IServiceProvider provider) {
requiredServices = new Dictionary<string, Object>();
var catalogServiceTask = Task.Run(() => provider.GetService<ICatalogService>());
var customerServiceTask = Task.Run(() => provider.GetService<ICustomerService>());
// .... few other services like above approx 10+ again
Task.WhenAll(catalogServiceTask, landingServiceTask, customerServiceTask).Wait();
requiredServices[nameof(catalogService)] = catalogService = catalogServiceTask.Result;
requiredServices[nameof(customerService)] = customerService = customerServiceTask.Result;
// ....
}
}
ICatalogService and ICustomerService are normal interfaces with some methods in them that their implementation class implements.
Below is one of our middlewares example that extend BaseMiddleware. All other middlewares follow same logic as below one -
FirstServiceMiddleware.cs
public class FirstServiceMiddleware : BaseMiddleware
{
public FirstServiceMiddleware(RequestDelegate next) : base(next) { }
public override bool IsCorrectEndpoint(HttpContext context)
{
return context.Request.Path.StartsWithSegments("/first");
}
public override string GetEndpoint(HttpContext context) => "/first";
public override async Task HandleRequest(HttpContext context)
{
context.Response.StatusCode = 200;
context.Response.ContentType = "application/json";
await context.Response.WriteAsync("Hello World!");
}
}
public static class FirstServiceMiddlewareExtension
{
public static IApplicationBuilder UseFirstService(this IApplicationBuilder builder)
{
return builder.UseMiddleware<FirstServiceMiddleware>();
}
}
Below is how my Startup class is configured -
Startup.cs
private static ILoggingService _loggingService;
public Startup(IHostingEnvironment env) {
var builder = new ConfigurationBuilder()
.SetBasePath(env.ContentRootPath)
.AddJsonFile("appsettings.json", optional: true, reloadOnChange: true)
.AddJsonFile($"appsettings.{env.EnvironmentName}.json", optional: true)
.AddEnvironmentVariables();
Configuration = builder.Build();
}
public IConfigurationRoot Configuration { get; }
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
services.AddResponseCompression(options =>
{
options.Providers.Add<GzipCompressionProvider>();
});
services.Configure<GzipCompressionProviderOptions>(options =>
{
options.Level = CompressionLevel.Fastest;
});
DependencyBootstrap.WireUpDependencies(services);
var provider = services.BuildServiceProvider();
if (_loggingService == null) _loggingService = provider.GetService<ILoggingService>();
//.. some other code here
BaseMiddleware.InitializeDependencies(provider);
}
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostApplicationLifetime lifetime) {
// old legacy middlewares
app.UseFirstService();
// .. few other middlewares here
}
And below is my DependencyBootstrap class -
DependencyBootstrap.cs
public static class DependencyBootstrap
{
//.. some constants here
public static void WireUpDependencies(IServiceCollection services)
{
ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(100, 100);
var provider = services.BuildServiceProvider();
var loggingService = provider.GetService<ILoggingService>();
// ... some other code here
try
{
WireUp(services, loggingService);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex);
}
}
private static void WireUp(IServiceCollection services, ILoggingService loggingService)
{
// adding services here
services.AddSingleton<....>();
services.AddSingleton<....>();
//....
var localProvider = services.BuildServiceProvider();
if (IS_DEVELOPMENT)
{
processClient = null;
}
else
{
processClient = localProvider.GetService<IProcessClient>();
}
services.AddSingleton<IData, DataImpl>();
services.AddSingleton<ICatalogService, CatalogServiceImpl>();
services.AddSingleton<ICustomerService, CustomerServiceImpl>();
//.. some other services and singleton here
}
}
Problem Statement
I have recently started working with C# and asp.net core framework. I have done my reading and it looks like -
Our legacy application doesn't use Dependency Injection properly as we have lot of places using BuildServiceProvider method which causes that warning. I am not sure why we have to do it.
Also do we really need InitializeDependencies method in BaseMiddleware class? If not then how we can initialize dependencies properly? It looks like we are trying to initialize all the dependencies during server startup so that they all are ready when the call comes for any middleware. I'd like to keep this logic as it is if possible.
Currently I am confuse what is the best way to use DI in asp.net core and if my application is doing it wrong then how can I do it the right way? Above code works fine in our application from a very long time but looks like we might be using it totally wrong way of DI.

Calling BuildServiceProvider multiple times can cause serious trouble, because each call to BuildServiceProvider results in a new container instance with its own cache. This means that registrations that are expected to have the Singleton lifestyle, suddenly are created more than once. This is a problem called Ambiguous Lifestyle.
Some Singletons are stateless and for them there is no difference in creating one or a thousand. But other components that are registered as Singleton might have state, and the working of the application might (indirectly) depend on that state not being duplicated.
To make matters worse, while your application might work correctly today, this might change any time in the future when one of the third-party or framework components you depend on makes a change to one of their components in such way that it becomes a problem when that component is created multiple times.
In your example, you are resolving both ILoggingService and IProcessClient from a service provider. If the resolved components are stateless objects without stateful dependencies, there is no real harm done. But this might change when they become stateful. Again, this can happen by a change of one of its indirect dependencies, so this is something you might not be aware of. This can cause you or your team to waste many hours; such problem will likely not be easily found.
This means that the answer "simply" is to prevent calling BuildServiceProvider() to create intermediate container instances. But this might be easier said than done. In your case, however, you seem to require a dependency on ILoggerService before all dependencies are wired. A typical way to achieve this is to split the registration phase into two separate steps:
One step where you manually create those few singletons that you need before hand
Add them to your container builder (IServiceCollection)
Add all other registrations
For instance:
private ILoggingService _loggingService;
public Startup(Confiration config)
{
_loggingService = new MySpecialLoggingService(config.LogPath);
}
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddSingleton(_loggingService);
// More stuf here.
...
}
Advantage of this structure is that when a dependency is added to the constructor of this manually built MySpecialLoggingService, your code stops compiling and you're forced to look at this code. When that constructor depends on some other framework abstraction or application abstraction that isn't yet available, you know you're in trouble and need to rethink your design.
Final note, calling BuildServiceProvider multiple times isn't a bad thing per se. It is okay when you explicitly want to have multiple isolated modules in your application that each have their own state and run independently of one another. For instance when running multiple end points for multiple bounded contexts within the same process.
UPDATE
I think I am starting to understand what it is you are trying to achieve in your BaseMiddleware. It is a 'convenient' helper class that holds all the dependencies that its derivatives might need. This is probably an old design and you might be aware of this, but this base class is quite problematic. Base classes with dependencies are hardly ever a good idea, because they tend to become big, ever changing, and obfuscate the fact that their derivatives become too complex. In your case, even, you are using the Service Locator anti-pattern which is never a good idea.
Besides this, there is a lot going on in that BaseMiddleware class that—to me—makes little sense, such as:
It contains complex logic to verify whether all dependencies exist, while there are more effective ways to do so. The most effective way is to apply Constructor Injection because it will guarantee that its necessary dependencies are always available. On top of that, you can validate the IServiceCollection on build. This gives you even greater guarantees over the correctness of your DI configuration than your BaseMiddleware currently provides.
It resolves all its services in background threads, which implies that construction of those components is either heavy on CPU or I/O, which is a problem. Instead composition should be fast, because injection constructors should be simple, which allows you to compose object graph with confidence.
You do exception handling in the base class, while it is better suited to be applied at a higher level; for instance, using an outer-most piece of middleware. For the sake of simplicity, though, my next example keeps exception handling inside the base class. That's because I have no idea what kind of things you are doing in there, that could influence my answer.
As the base class is resolving from the root container, middleware classes are only able to make use of Singleton dependencies. Connecting to the database through Entity Framework, for instance, will be a problem, because DbContext classes should not be captured in Singleton consumers.
So, with the observations and advice above, I would suggest reducing the BaseMiddleware class to the following:
// Your middleware classes should implement IMiddleware; this allows middleware
// classes to be transient and have scoped dependencies.
public abstract class ImprovedBaseMiddleware : IMiddleware
{
public abstract bool IsCorrectEndpoint(HttpContext context);
public abstract string GetEndpoint(HttpContext context);
public abstract Task HandleRequest(HttpContext context);
public async Task InvokeAsync(HttpContext context, RequestDelegate next)
{
if (IsCorrectEndpoint(context)) {
try {
await HandleRequest(context);
}
catch (Exception ex) {
// handle exception here
return;
}
return;
}
await next(context);
}
}
Now based on this new base class, create your middleware implementations similar to this next example:
public class ImprovedFirstServiceMiddleware : ImprovedBaseMiddleware
{
private readonly ICatalogService _catalogService;
// Add all dependencies required by this middleware in the constructor.
public FirstServiceMiddleware(ICatalogService catalogService)
{
_catalogService = catalogService;
}
public override bool IsCorrectEndpoint(HttpContext context) =>
context.Request.Path.StartsWithSegments("/first");
public override string GetEndpoint(HttpContext context) => "/first";
public override async Task HandleRequest(HttpContext context)
{
context.Response.StatusCode = 200;
context.Response.ContentType = "application/json";
await context.Response.WriteAsync("Hello from "
+ _catalogService.SomeValue());
}
}
In your application, you can register your middleware classes as follows:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
// When middleware implements IMiddleware, it must be registered. But
// that's okay, because it allows the middleware with its
// dependencies to be 'verified on build'.
services.AddTransient<ImprovedFirstServiceMiddleware>();
// If you have many middleware classes, you can use
// Auto-Registration instead. e.g.:
var middlewareTypes =
from type in typeof(HomeController).Assembly.GetTypes()
where !type.IsAbstract && !type.IsGenericType
where typeof(IMiddleware).IsAssignableFrom(type)
select type;
foreach (var middlewareType in middlewareTypes)
services.AddTransient(middlewareType);
...
}
public void Configure(
IApplicationBuilder app, IHostApplicationLifetime lifetime)
{
// Add your middleware in the correct order as you did previously.
builder.UseMiddleware<ImprovedFirstServiceMiddleware>();
}
TIP: If you start to notice that a middleware classes get big constructors, that's likely because such class does too much and gets too complex. This means it should be refactored into multiple smaller classes. In that case, your class is exhibiting the Constructor Over-Injection code smell. There are many possible refactoring patterns and design patterns available that can get you out of this situation.

How to initialize scoped dependencies for consumers using MassTransit filters?

I would like to initialize some dependencies resolved from the MassTransit serviceProvider in the same way Asp.Net Core does with the pipeline's middlewares.
In particular I would like to inspect the incoming message before the consumer is called and extract the tenant from it (I'm currently working on a multitenant web application with single database per tenant).
With this informations I need to initialize some scoped instances (Ef Core DbContext for example).
I know that I can inject them in the Consumer through constructor but this means that I must do that everytime I write a new one, so I suppose that a filter should be the right place (correct me if I'm wrong).
The problem raises when I need to access the current consumer scope to resolve the dependencies that I need. I was thinking that the behavior of the MassTransit' pipeline was similar to the Asp.Net one regarding middleware injection but I was probably wrong.
I haven't found any documentation on how to do that clearly without cluttering the code of the filter, so any suggestion is going to be really appreciated.
This is the filter that I need to modify:
public class TenantContextInitializerFilter<T> : IFilter<T> where T : class, ConsumeContext
{
public void Probe(ProbeContext context) { }
public async Task Send(T context, IPipe<T> next)
{
//Resolve scoped instance here and do something before Consumer is called
var connectionStringProvider = scope.GetService<IConnectionStringProvider>();
await next.Send(context);
}
}
public class RegistrationsDeliveredEventConsumer : IConsumer<IRegistrationsDelivered>
{
private readonly IConnectionStringProvider _connectionStringProvider;
public RegistrationsDeliveredEventConsumer(IConnectionStringProvider connectionStringProvider)
{
//This should be the same instance that has been resolved in the filter' Send() method
_connectionStringProvider = connectionStringProvider;
}
public async Task Consume(ConsumeContext<IRegistrationsDelivered> context)
{
}
}
This is a simplified example of my code but this should be enough

There's two facets to consider: 1) are filters registered as services/pulled from the service collection when using the ASP.NET Core integration and 2) what lifetime do the filters have if they are. I'm not familiar with the MassTransit ASP.NET Core integration, but it looks like you should be good based on a cursory review. You'll need to confirm that both of those requirements are met.
For dependency injection, in general, constructor injection is the way to go unless there's a very specific need to do something different, which does not seem to be the case here. In short, you need a constructor for your filter.
What exactly you need to inject is a function of the lifetime of the filter. If it has a transient lifetime, then you can inject your scoped dependencies directly. If it has a singleton lifetime, then you'll need to inject IServiceProvider instead, and do the following whenever you need to use one of those dependencies:
using (var scope = _serviceProvider.CreateScope())
{
var dep = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<MyDependency>();
// do something with `dep`
}

Here's a draft... I'm sure there are missing pieces, so let me know if you have questions.
public class TenantContextInitializerFilter<T> : IFilter<T> where T : class, ConsumeContext
{
private readonly Func<string, IDbConnection> _dbContextAccessor;
public void Probe(ProbeContext context) { }
public TenantContextInitializerFilter(Func<string, IDbConnection> dbContextAccessor)
{
_dbContextAccessor = dbContextAccessor;
}
public async Task Send(T context, IPipe<T> next)
{
var tenantId = ""; // place holder
using (var dbContext = _dbContextAccessor(tenantId))
{
//... do db logic
}
await next.Send(context);
}
}
public class Startup
{
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddScoped<IConnectionStringProvider>(
provider => null /* TODO figure out how to fetch scoped instance from a cache or some storage mechanism*/);
services.AddScoped(provider =>
{
IDbConnection Accessor(string tenantId)
{
if (provider.GetService<IConnectionStringProvider>()
.TryGetConnectionString(tenantId, out var connectionString, out var providerName))
return new SqlConnection(connectionString);
throw new Exception();
}
return (Func<string, IDbConnection>)Accessor;
});
}
}

Delay creation of instance in Simple Injector

I am using Simple Injector in my project to hook up all the required dependencies, but I cannot call container.Verify because it creates a Singleton instance for an http configuration before the actual first request
public interface IConfiguration { }
public class Configuration : IConfiguration
{
public Configuration()
{
var httpContext = HttpContext.Current;
var httpRequest = currentHttpContext.Request;
var httpRequestUrl = currentHttpRequest.Url;
this.UriScheme = currentHttpRequestUrl.Scheme;
this.UriHost = currentHttpRequestUrl.Host;
this.UriPort = currentHttpRequestUrl.Port;
}
public string UriScheme { get; private set; }
public string UriHost { get; private set; }
public int UriPort { get; private set; }
}
public class ServiceA
{
private readonly _configuration;
public ServiceA(IConfiguration configuration)
{
_configuration = configuration
}
}
public class ServiceB
{
private readonly _configuration;
public ServiceB(IConfiguration configuration)
{
_configuration = configuration
}
}
This is a basic example of the scenario. I currently have around 60 services all depending on IConfiguration
All the configuration needs to happen when the configuration class is created
This is what I do to register the instances in the container
var container = new Container();
//container.RegisterSingleton<IConfiguration, Configuration>();
var lazy = new Lazy<InstanceProducer>(() =>
Lifestyle.Singleton.CreateProducer(typeof(IConfiguration), typeof(Configuration), container));
container.Register<ServiceA>();
container.Register<ServiceB>();
container.Verify(); // Creates configuration class --> not desired
As per How can I skip verification of an object in the container
So the trick here is to trigger the creation of new InstanceProducer instances after the verification process
I know the workaround is using Lazy<T> and InstanceCreator but I cannot finish hooking my code correctly
EDIT
The Configuration class has no dependencies. The problem with Configuration is that it gets created as a Singleton on the container.Verify method call and at that time the currentHttpRequest.Url is not the actual url
I suppose I can move the configuration from the constructor to a method (e.g GetConfiguration) and do some refactoring but I am curious if delaying the instance creation can be achieved under the scenario of the question

As explained by Mark Seemann in this article, injection constructors should be simple and reliable. They shouldn't do anything that might cause it to fail. Calling HttpContext.Current inside the constructor makes it unreliable, since this is something that might fail.
Besides this, your Configuration component now depends upon runtime data (the HttpContext.Current is runtime data), which is a sin, as explained in this article.
The solution to your problem however is really simple and straightforward. Just change your Configuration class to the following:
public sealed class Configuration : IConfiguration
{
public string UriScheme => this.Url.Scheme;
public string UriHost => this.Url.Host;
public int UriPort => this.Url.Port;
private Uri Url => HttpContext.Current.Request.Url;
}
Not only does this simplify things, it also removes the anti-patterns that you were applying which caused you trouble. Your constructor is now so simple, that it isn't even there anymore (can't get any simpler than this). And the runtime data is now only requested (from HttpContext.Current) after the object graph is constructed. This allows the container to verify its configuration reliably.

Factory Pattern with Open Generics

In ASP.NET Core, one of the things you can do with Microsoft's dependency injection framework is bind "open generics" (generic types unbound to a concrete type) like so:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
services.AddSingleton(typeof(IRepository<>), typeof(Repository<>))
}
You can also employ the factory pattern to hydrate dependencies. Here's a contrived example:
public interface IFactory<out T> {
T Provide();
}
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
services.AddTransient(typeof(IFactory<>), typeof(Factory<>));
services.AddSingleton(
typeof(IRepository<Foo>),
p => p.GetRequiredService<IFactory<IRepository<Foo>>().Provide()
);
}
However, I have not been able to figure out how to combine the two concepts together. It seems like it would start with something like this, but I need the concrete type that is being used to hydrate an instance of IRepository<>.
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services) {
services.AddTransient(typeof(IFactory<>), typeof(Factory<>));
services.AddSingleton(
typeof(IRepository<>),
provider => {
// Say the IServiceProvider is trying to hydrate
// IRepository<Foo> when this lambda is invoked.
// In that case, I need access to a System.Type
// object which is IRepository<Foo>.
// i.e.: repositoryType = typeof(IRepository<Foo>);
// If I had that, I could snag the generic argument
// from IRepository<Foo> and hydrate the factory, like so:
var modelType = repositoryType.GetGenericArguments()[0];
var factoryType = typeof(IFactory<IRepository<>>).MakeGenericType(modelType);
var factory = (IFactory<object>)p.GetRequiredService(factoryType);
return factory.Provide();
}
);
}
If I try to use the Func<IServiceProvider, object> functor with an open generic, I get this ArgumentException with the message Open generic service type 'IRepository<T>' requires registering an open generic implementation type. from the dotnet CLI. It doesn't even get to the lambda.
Is this type of binding possible with Microsoft's dependency injection framework?

The net.core dependency does not allow you to provide a factory method when registering an open generic type, but you can work around this by providing a type that will implement the requested interface, but internally it will act as a factory. A factory in disguise:
services.AddSingleton(typeof(IMongoCollection<>), typeof(MongoCollectionFactory<>)); //this is the important part
services.AddSingleton(typeof(IRepository<>), typeof(Repository<>))
public class Repository : IRepository {
private readonly IMongoCollection _collection;
public Repository(IMongoCollection collection)
{
_collection = collection;
}
// .. rest of the implementation
}
//and this is important as well
public class MongoCollectionFactory<T> : IMongoCollection<T> {
private readonly _collection;
public RepositoryFactoryAdapter(IMongoDatabase database) {
// do the factory work here
_collection = database.GetCollection<T>(typeof(T).Name.ToLowerInvariant())
}
public T Find(string id)
{
return collection.Find(id);
}
// ... etc. all the remaining members of the IMongoCollection<T>,
// you can generate this easily with ReSharper, by running
// delegate implementation to a new field refactoring
}
When the container resolves the MongoCollectionFactory it will know what type T is and will create the collection correctly. Then we take that created collection save it internally, and delegate all calls to it. ( We are mimicking this=factory.Create() which is not allowed in csharp. :))
Update:
As pointed out by Kristian Hellang the same pattern is used by ASP.NET Logging
public class Logger<T> : ILogger<T>
{
private readonly ILogger _logger;
public Logger(ILoggerFactory factory)
{
_logger = factory.CreateLogger(TypeNameHelper.GetTypeDisplayName(typeof(T)));
}
void ILogger.Log<TState>(...)
{
_logger.Log(logLevel, eventId, state, exception, formatter);
}
}
original discussion here:
https://twitter.com/khellang/status/839120286222012416

See this issue on the dotnet (5) runtime git.
This will add support to register open generics via a factory.

I was dissatisfied with the existing solutions as well.
Here is a full solution, using the built-in container, that supports everything we need:
Simple dependencies.
Complex dependencies (requiring the IServiceProvider to be resolved).
Configuration data (such as connection strings).
We will register a proxy of the type that we really want to use. The proxy simply inherits from the intended type, but gets the "difficult" parts (complex dependencies and configuration) through a separately registered Options type.
Since the Options type is non-generic, it is easy to customize as usual.
public static class RepositoryExtensions
{
/// <summary>
/// A proxy that injects data based on a registered Options type.
/// As long as we register the Options with exactly what we need, we are good to go.
/// That's easy, since the Options are non-generic!
/// </summary>
private class ProxyRepository<T> : Repository<T>
{
public ProxyRepository(Options options, ISubdependency simpleDependency)
: base(
// A simple dependency is injected to us automatically - we only need to register it
simpleDependency,
// A complex dependency comes through the non-generic, carefully registered Options type
options?.ComplexSubdependency ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(options)),
// Configuration data comes through the Options type as well
options.ConnectionString)
{
}
}
public static IServiceCollection AddRepositories(this ServiceCollection services, string connectionString)
{
// Register simple subdependencies (to be automatically resolved)
services.AddSingleton<ISubdependency, Subdependency>();
// Put all regular configuration on the Options instance
var optionObject = new Options(services)
{
ConnectionString = connectionString ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(connectionString))
};
// Register the Options instance
// On resolution, last-minute, add the complex subdependency to the options as well (with access to the service provider)
services.AddSingleton(serviceProvider => optionObject.WithSubdependency(ResolveSubdependency(serviceProvider)));
// Register the open generic type
// All dependencies will be resolved automatically: the simple dependency, and the Options (holding everything else)
services.AddSingleton(typeof(IRepository<>), typeof(ProxyRepository<>));
return services;
// Local function that resolves the subdependency according to complex logic ;-)
ISubdependency ResolveSubdependency(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
return new Subdependency();
}
}
internal sealed class Options
{
internal IServiceCollection Services { get; }
internal ISubdependency ComplexSubdependency { get; set; }
internal string ConnectionString { get; set; }
internal Options(IServiceCollection services)
{
this.Services = services ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(services));
}
/// <summary>
/// Fluently sets the given subdependency, allowing to options object to be mutated and returned as a single expression.
/// </summary>
internal Options WithSubdependency(ISubdependency subdependency)
{
this.ComplexSubdependency = subdependency ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(subdependency));
return this;
}
}
}

I also don't understand the point of your lambda expression so I'll explain to you my way of doing it.
I suppose what you wish is to reach what is explained in the article you shared
This allowed me to inspect the incoming request before supplying a dependency into the ASP.NET Core dependency injection system
My need was to inspect a custom header in the HTTP request to determine which customer is requesting my API. I could then a bit later in the pipeline decide which implementation of my IDatabaseRepository (File System or Entity Framework linked to a SQL Database) to provide for this unique request.
So I start by writing a middleware
public class ContextSettingsMiddleware
{
private readonly RequestDelegate _next;
public ContextSettingsMiddleware(RequestDelegate next, IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
_next = next;
}
public async Task Invoke(HttpContext context, IServiceProvider serviceProvider, IHostingEnvironment env, IContextSettings contextSettings)
{
var customerName = context.Request.Headers["customer"];
var customer = SettingsProvider.Instance.Settings.Customers.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Name == customerName);
contextSettings.SetCurrentCustomer(customer);
await _next.Invoke(context);
}
}
My SettingsProvider is just a singleton that provides me the corresponding customer object.
To let our middleware access this ContextSettings we first need to register it in ConfigureServices in Startup.cs
var contextSettings = new ContextSettings();
services.AddSingleton<IContextSettings>(contextSettings);
And in the Configure method we register our middleware
app.UseMiddleware<ContextSettingsMiddleware>();
Now that our customer is accessible from elsewhere let's write our Factory.
public class DatabaseRepositoryFactory
{
private IHostingEnvironment _env { get; set; }
public Func<IServiceProvider, IDatabaseRepository> DatabaseRepository { get; private set; }
public DatabaseRepositoryFactory(IHostingEnvironment env)
{
_env = env;
DatabaseRepository = GetDatabaseRepository;
}
private IDatabaseRepository GetDatabaseRepository(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
var contextSettings = serviceProvider.GetService<IContextSettings>();
var currentCustomer = contextSettings.GetCurrentCustomer();
if(SOME CHECK)
{
var currentDatabase = currentCustomer.CurrentDatabase as FileSystemDatabase;
var databaseRepository = new FileSystemDatabaseRepository(currentDatabase.Path);
return databaseRepository;
}
else
{
var currentDatabase = currentCustomer.CurrentDatabase as EntityDatabase;
var dbContext = new CustomDbContext(currentDatabase.ConnectionString, _env.EnvironmentName);
var databaseRepository = new EntityFrameworkDatabaseRepository(dbContext);
return databaseRepository;
}
}
}
In order to use serviceProvider.GetService<>() method you will need to include the following using in your CS file
using Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection;
Finally we can use our Factory in ConfigureServices method
var databaseRepositoryFactory = new DatabaseRepositoryFactory(_env);
services.AddScoped<IDatabaseRepository>(databaseRepositoryFactory.DatabaseRepository);
So every single HTTP request my DatabaseRepository will may be different depending of several parameters. I could use a file system or a SQL Database and I can get the proper database corresponding to my customer. (Yes I have multiple databases per customer, don't try to understand why)
I simplified it as possible, my code is in reality more complex but you get the idea (I hope). Now you can modify this to fit your needs.

Dependency Injection in Model classes (entities)

I am building an ASP.NET Core MVC application with Entity Framework Code-First.
I implemented a simple repository pattern, providing basic CRUD operations for all the model classes I have created.
I chose to follow all the recommendations provided in docs and DI is one of these.
In ~~.NET 5~~ (6 years later update: .net 5 was the alpha name of .net core 1.0) dependency injection works very well for any class that we do not directly instantiate (e.g.: controllers, data repositories, ...).
We simply inject them via the constructor, and register the mappings in the Startup class of the application :
// Some repository class
public class MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
private readonly IMyDependency _myDependency;
public MyRepository(IMyDependency myDependency)
{
_myDependency = myDependency;
}
}
// In startup.cs :
services.AddScoped<IMyDependency, MyDependency>();
services.AddScoped<IMyRepository, MyRepository>();
The problem is that in some of my model classes, I would like to inject some of the dependencies I have declared.
But I think that I cannot use the constructor injection pattern because model classes are often explicitly instantiated. Therefore, I would need to provide myself with the dependencies, which I can't.
So my question is: is there another way than constructor injection to inject dependencies, and how? I was for example thinking of an attribute pattern or something like that.

As I already explained in a comment, when creating an object using new, there is nothing from the dependency injection framework that is involved in the process. As such, it’s impossible for the DI framework to magically inject things into that object, it simply doesn’t know about it.
Since it does not make any sense to let the DI framework create your model instances (models are not a dependency), you will have to pass in your dependencies explicitly if you want the model to have them. How you do that depends a bit on what your models are used for, and what those dependencies are.
The simple and clear case would be to just have your model expect the dependencies on the constructor. That way, it is a compile time error if you do not provide them, and the model has access to them right away. As such, whatever is above, creating the models, is required to have the dependencies the model type needs. But at that level, it’s likely that this is a service or a controller which has access to DI and can request the dependency itself.
Of course, depending on the number of dependencies, this might become a bit complicated as you need to pass them all to the constructor. So one alternative would be to have some “model factory” that takes care of creating the model object. Another alternative would also be to use the service locator pattern, passing the IServiceCollection to the model which can then request whatever dependencies it needs. Note that is generally a bad practice and not really inversion of control anymore.
Both these ideas have the issue that they modify the way the object is created. And some models, especially those handled by Entity Framework, need an empty constructor in order for EF to be able to create the object. So at that point you will probably end up with some cases where the dependencies of your model are not resolved (and you have no easy way of telling).
A generally better way, which is also a lot more explicit, would be to pass in the dependency where you need it, e.g. if you have some method on the model that calculates some stuff but requires some configuration, let the method require that configuration. This also makes the methods easier to test.
Another solution would be to move the logic out of the model. For example the ASP.NET Identity models are really dumb. They don’t do anything. All the logic is done in the UserStore which is a service and as such can have service dependencies.

The pattern often used in domain driven design (rich domain model to be specific) is to pass the required services into the method you are calling.
For example if you want to calculate the vat, you'd pass the vat service into the CalculateVat method.
In your model
public void CalculateVat(IVatCalculator vatCalc)
{
if(vatCalc == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(vatCalc));
decimal vatAmount = vatcalc.Calculate(this.TotalNetPrice, this.Country);
this.VatAmount = new Currency(vatAmount, this.CurrencySymbol);
}
Your service class
// where vatCalculator is an implementation IVatCalculator
order.CalculateVat(vatCalculator);
Finally your service can inject another services, like a repository which will fetch the tax rate for a certain country
public class VatCalculator : IVatCalculator
{
private readonly IVatRepository vatRepository;
public VatCalculator(IVatRepository vatRepository)
{
if(vatRepository == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(vatRepository));
this.vatRepository = vatRepository;
}
public decimal Calculate(decimal value, Country country)
{
decimal vatRate = vatRepository.GetVatRateForCountry(country);
return vatAmount = value * vatRate;
}
}

I know my answer is late and may not exactly what you're asking for, but I wanted to share how I do it.
First of all: If you want to have a static class that resolves your dependencies this is a ServiceLocator and it's Antipattern so try not to use it as you can.
In my case I needed it to call MediatR inside of my DomainModel to implement the DomainEvents logic.
Anyway, I had to find a way to call a static class in my DomainModel to get an instance of some registered service from DI.
So I've decided to use the HttpContext to access the IServiceProvider but I needed to access it from a static method without mention it in my domain model.
Let's do it:
1- I've created an interface to wrap the IServiceProvider
public interface IServiceProviderProxy
{
T GetService<T>();
IEnumerable<T> GetServices<T>();
object GetService(Type type);
IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type type);
}
2- Then I've created a static class to be my ServiceLocator access point
public static class ServiceLocator
{
private static IServiceProviderProxy diProxy;
public static IServiceProviderProxy ServiceProvider => diProxy ?? throw new Exception("You should Initialize the ServiceProvider before using it.");
public static void Initialize(IServiceProviderProxy proxy)
{
diProxy = proxy;
}
}
3- I've created an implementation for the IServiceProviderProxy which use internally the IHttpContextAccessor
public class HttpContextServiceProviderProxy : IServiceProviderProxy
{
private readonly IHttpContextAccessor contextAccessor;
public HttpContextServiceProviderProxy(IHttpContextAccessor contextAccessor)
{
this.contextAccessor = contextAccessor;
}
public T GetService<T>()
{
return contextAccessor.HttpContext.RequestServices.GetService<T>();
}
public IEnumerable<T> GetServices<T>()
{
return contextAccessor.HttpContext.RequestServices.GetServices<T>();
}
public object GetService(Type type)
{
return contextAccessor.HttpContext.RequestServices.GetService(type);
}
public IEnumerable<object> GetServices(Type type)
{
return contextAccessor.HttpContext.RequestServices.GetServices(type);
}
}
4- I should register the IServiceProviderProxy in the DI like this
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddHttpContextAccessor();
services.AddSingleton<IServiceProviderProxy, HttpContextServiceProviderProxy>();
.......
}
5- Final step is to initialize the ServiceLocator with an instance of IServiceProviderProxy at the Application startup
public void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IHostingEnvironment env,IServiceProvider sp)
{
ServiceLocator.Initialize(sp.GetService<IServiceProviderProxy>());
}
As a result now you can call the ServiceLocator in your DomainModel classes "Or and needed place" and resolve the dependencies that you need.
public class FakeModel
{
public FakeModel(Guid id, string value)
{
Id = id;
Value = value;
}
public Guid Id { get; }
public string Value { get; private set; }
public async Task UpdateAsync(string value)
{
Value = value;
var mediator = ServiceLocator.ServiceProvider.GetService<IMediator>();
await mediator.Send(new FakeModelUpdated(this));
}
}

The built-in model binders complain that they cannot find a default ctor. Therefore you need a custom one.
You may find a solution to a similar problem here, which inspects the registered services in order to create the model.
It is important to note that the snippets below provide slightly different functionality which, hopefully, satisfies your particular needs. The code below expects models with ctor injections. Of course, these models have the usual properties you might have defined. These properties are filled in exactly as expected, so the bonus is the correct behavior when binding models with ctor injections.
public class DiModelBinder : ComplexTypeModelBinder
{
public DiModelBinder(IDictionary<ModelMetadata, IModelBinder> propertyBinders) : base(propertyBinders)
{
}
/// <summary>
/// Creates the model with one (or more) injected service(s).
/// </summary>
/// <param name="bindingContext"></param>
/// <returns></returns>
protected override object CreateModel(ModelBindingContext bindingContext)
{
var services = bindingContext.HttpContext.RequestServices;
var modelType = bindingContext.ModelType;
var ctors = modelType.GetConstructors();
foreach (var ctor in ctors)
{
var paramTypes = ctor.GetParameters().Select(p => p.ParameterType).ToList();
var parameters = paramTypes.Select(p => services.GetService(p)).ToArray();
if (parameters.All(p => p != null))
{
var model = ctor.Invoke(parameters);
return model;
}
}
return null;
}
}
This binder will be provided by:
public class DiModelBinderProvider : IModelBinderProvider
{
public IModelBinder GetBinder(ModelBinderProviderContext context)
{
if (context == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(context)); }
if (context.Metadata.IsComplexType && !context.Metadata.IsCollectionType)
{
var propertyBinders = context.Metadata.Properties.ToDictionary(property => property, context.CreateBinder);
return new DiModelBinder(propertyBinders);
}
return null;
}
}
Here's how the binder would be registered:
services.AddMvc().AddMvcOptions(options =>
{
// replace ComplexTypeModelBinderProvider with its descendent - IoCModelBinderProvider
var provider = options.ModelBinderProviders.FirstOrDefault(x => x.GetType() == typeof(ComplexTypeModelBinderProvider));
var binderIndex = options.ModelBinderProviders.IndexOf(provider);
options.ModelBinderProviders.Remove(provider);
options.ModelBinderProviders.Insert(binderIndex, new DiModelBinderProvider());
});
I'm not quite sure if the new binder must be registered exactly at the same index, you can experiment with this.
And, at the end, this is how you can use it:
public class MyModel
{
private readonly IMyRepository repo;
public MyModel(IMyRepository repo)
{
this.repo = repo;
}
... do whatever you want with your repo
public string AProperty { get; set; }
... other properties here
}
Model class is created by the binder which supplies the (already registered) service, and the rest of the model binders provide the property values from their usual sources.
HTH

Is there another way than constructor injection to inject dependencies, and how?
The answer is "no", this cannot be done with "dependency injection". But, "yes" you can use the "service locator pattern" to achieve your end-goal.
You can use the code below to resolve a dependency without the use of constructor injection or the FromServices attribute. Additionally you can new up an instance of the class as you see fit and it will still work -- assuming that you have added the dependency in the Startup.cs.
public class MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
public IMyDependency { get; } =
CallContextServiceLocator.Locator
.ServiceProvider
.GetRequiredService<IMyDependency>();
}
The CallContextServiceLocator.Locator.ServiceProvider is the global service provider, where everything lives. It is not really advised to use this. But if you have no other choice you can. It would be recommended to instead use DI all the way and never manually instantiate an object, i.e.; avoid new.

I'm simply adding some supplemental information here to the answers provided that can help.
IServiceProvider was provided in the accepted answer, but not the important IServiceProvider.CreateScope() method. You can use it to create scopes as necessary that you added through ConfigureServices.
I'm not sure if IServiceProvider is actually a Service Locator pattern behind the scenes or not, but it's how you create scopes as far as I know. At least in the case if it is a Service Locator pattern, it's the official one for today in .NET, and so it's not compounded by the problems of writing your own Service Locator, which I also agree is anti-pattern.
Example, Startup.cs/ConfigureServices and Configure:
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddDbContext<SomeDbContext>(options =>
{
options.UseSqlServer(Configuration.GetSection("Databases").GetSection("SomeDb")["ConnectionString"]);
options.UseQueryTrackingBehavior(QueryTrackingBehavior.NoTracking);
}, ServiceLifetime.Scoped);
services.AddMvcCore().AddNewtonsoftJson();
services.AddControllersWithViews();
}
public async void Configure(IApplicationBuilder app, IWebHostEnvironment env, IServiceProvider provider)
{
...
IServiceScope scope = provider.CreateScope();
SomeDbContext context = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<SomeDbContext>();
SomeModelProxyClass example = new SomeModelProxyClass(context);
await example.BuildDefaults(
Configuration.GetSection("ProfileDefaults").GetSection("Something"),
Configuration.GetSection("ProfileDefaults").GetSection("SomethingSomething"));
scope.Dispose();
}
The above is for doing some default interactions on Startup, maybe if you need to build some default records in your database on a first usage, just as an example.
Ok so let's get to your repository and dependency though, will they work?
Yep!
Here's a test in my own CRUD project, I made a simple minimalist implementation of your IMyDependency and IMyRepository like so, then added them scoped as you did to Startup/ConfigureServices:
public interface IMyRepository
{
string WriteMessage(string input);
}
public interface IMyDependency
{
string GetTimeStamp();
}
public class MyDependency : IMyDependency
{
public MyDependency()
{
}
public string GetTimeStamp()
{
return DateTime.Now.ToLongDateString() + " " + DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString();
}
}
public class MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
private readonly IMyDependency _myDependency;
public MyRepository(IMyDependency myDependency)
{
_myDependency = myDependency;
}
public string WriteMessage(string input)
{
return input + " - " + _myDependency.GetTimeStamp();
}
}
Here ContextCRUD is a Model class from my own project not derived from Scaffold-DbContext tooling like my other database classes, it's a container of logic from those scaffold Model classes, and so I put it in the namespace Models.ProxyModels to hold its own business logic for doing CRUD operations so that the Controllers are not gummed up with logic that should be in the Model:
public ContextCRUD(DbContext context, IServiceProvider provider)
{
Context = context;
Provider = provider;
var scope = provider.CreateScope();
var dep1 = scope.ServiceProvider.GetService<IMyRepository>();
string msg = dep1.WriteMessage("Current Time:");
scope.Dispose();
}
Debugging I get back the expected results in msg, so it all checks out.
The calling code from the Controller for reference, just so you can see how IServiceProvider is passed from upstream by constructor injection in the Controller:
[Route("api/[controller]")]
public class GenericController<T> : Controller where T: DbContext
{
T Context { get; set; }
ContextCRUD CRUD { get; set; }
IConfiguration Configuration { get; set; }
public GenericController(T context, IConfiguration configuration, IServiceProvider provider)
{
Context = context;
CRUD = new ContextCRUD(context, provider);
Configuration = configuration;
}
...

You can do it, check out [InjectionMethod] and container.BuildUp(instance);
Example:
Typical DI constructor (NOT NEEDED IF YOU USE InjectionMethod) public
ClassConstructor(DeviceHead pDeviceHead) {
this.DeviceHead = pDeviceHead; }
This attribute causes this method to be called to setup DI.
[InjectionMethod] public void Initialize(DeviceHead pDeviceHead) {
this.DeviceHead = pDeviceHead; }