We Keep Coding

Add constructors to auto-generated OpenAPI service client

I've got a Blazor WebAssembly project with an ASP.NET WebAPI hosted service. If I use the auto-generated code in the "Connected Services" in Visual Studio to retrieve the OpenAPI definition, I get a nice proxy representing all of the HTTP endpoints, complete with request and reply objects.
But the generated request/reply classes have only a default constructor and properties, like:
[System.CodeDom.Compiler.GeneratedCode("NJsonSchema", "10.0.22.0 (Newtonsoft.Json v11.0.0.0)")]
public partial class GetDetailedMessageRequest
{
[Newtonsoft.Json.JsonProperty("id", Required = Newtonsoft.Json.Required.DisallowNull, NullValueHandling = Newtonsoft.Json.NullValueHandling.Ignore)]
public long Id { get; set; }
}
I prefer to have at least the option of a constructor with each of the properties - this is actually the way the classes are in the service side:
public class GetDetailedMessageRequest
{
public GetDetailedMessageRequest() { }
public GetDetailedMessageRequest(long id)
{
ID = id;
}
public long ID { get; set; }
}
Is there any way to either have the code generator build these constructors, or tell it not to create the model classes at all, and instead let both the client reference the shared models project?
Neither of these seems likely - I can think of a couple workarounds, like manually editing the generated code, or creating the request on the client using the class from my shared project, serializing it, deserializing it into the generated class type, or possibly just building the constructors again in new partial classes for all of these...But obviously those are not ideal.
I could always build my own code generator, or skip the generated stuff altogether and just use HttpClient normally - but I like the idea of an auto-generated proxy class.

"using" of two different libraries with almost identical functions

I'm consuming a SOAP web service. The web service designates a separate service URL for each of its customers. I don't know why they do that. All their functions and parameters are technically the same. But if I want to write a program for the service I have to know for each company is it intended. That means for a company called "apple" i have to use the following using statement:
using DMDelivery.apple;
and for the other called "orange"
using DMDelivery.orange;
But I would like to my program to work for all of them and have the name of the company or the service reference point as a parameter.
Update: If I have to write a separate application for each customer then I would have to keep all of them updated with each other with every small change and that would be one heck of an inefficient job as the number of customers increase.
Can anyone think of a solution? I'll be grateful.

If you have a base contract (interface) for all your services you can use a kind of factory to instantiate your concrete service and only have a reference to your interface in your client code (calling code).
//service interface
public interface IFruitService{
void SomeOperation();
}
//apple service
public class AppleService : IFruitService{
public void SomeOperation(){
//implementation
}
}
Having for example a kind of factory class (you can put your using statements here)
public static class ServiceFactory{
public static IFruitService CreateService(string kind){
if(kind == "apple")
return new AppleService();
else if(kind == "orange")
return new OrangeService();
else
return null;
}
}
And in your calling code (you just add an using statement for the namespace containing your interface):
string fruitKind = //get it from configuration
IFruitService service = ServiceFactory.CreateService( fruitKind );
service.SomeOperation();
You can also use the Dependency Injection principle.

If everything is the same and it's only the endpoint address that is different, maybe you can try changing only that before invoking the web service methods.
MyWebServiceObject ws= new MyWebServiceObject();
ws.Endpoint.Address = new System.ServiceModel.EndpointAddress("http://www.blah.com/apple.asmx");

Use any one client in your implementation. ex. Apple
Write a message inspector and attach this into the out going point
In message inspector replace the name space of the type with appropriate client name space.
EX:
Before Message inspector :MyClinet.Apple.Type
After Message Inspector : MyClient.Orange.Type, if the Provider is Orange.

Get custom object via WCF in an Explorer-Extension isn't working but in Winform

I have a WCF Host with something like this:
[ServiceContract]
public interface IMountToOs
{
[OperationContract]
char GetMountDriveLetter();
[OperationContract]
MyTestClass MyTest();
}
public class MyTestClass
{
public string A { get; set; }
public string B { get; set; }
}
Client
private IMountToOs _proxy;
public IMountToOs Proxy
{
get
{
if (_proxy == null)
{
NetTcpBinding binding = new NetTcpBinding();
binding.MaxReceivedMessageSize = 2147483647;
binding.OpenTimeout = TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(50000);
EndpointAddress address = new EndpointAddress("net.tcp://localhost:1234/MountToOsHost");
//_proxy = new MountToOsClient(binding, address);
ChannelFactory<IMountToOs> factory = new ChannelFactory<IMountToOs>(binding);
_proxy = factory.CreateChannel(address);
}
return _proxy;
}
}
While I can access
MessageBox.Show("Okay - " + Proxy.GetMountDriveLetter());
I can't call this method:
MessageBox.Show("Okay - " + Proxy.MyTest().A);
The complete extension is not working. But only while using it in an extension. Even if I insert a Messagebox in the first line of the extension it is not hit. I don't know why. It seems to run a pre-check and find the call of the custom class which is refused or so...
If I use a winform or so there is no problem.
.net 3.5
curious is that I have a break-point and a message of the hosts side. So I see that the method is not called
Update
now I moved the wcf-call in the Load Method of the extension and get a exception:
System.MissingMethodException: method not found:
"Contracts.Interfaces.MyTestClass
Contracts.Interfaces.IMountToOs.MyTest()".
My winform test and this extension use the same interface so that the method should known from both. no contract or so is outdated

According to what I found here and in the comments of the post: "For creating dynamic service proxy using client channel factory method, you will need datacontracts of the service. If you don't have datacontracts but you have the service URL, then you could use reflection to create proxy at runtime and call the service method."
Seems that the MyTestClass type is not known on the client side, so I think you could use reflection, or share the class between the client and server or much more simple, use the datacontract attribute.
Also, found something on MSDN that says something like this:
"When to use a proxy?
We create proxy using svcutil.exe. The output of this tool gives a proxy class and makes corresponding changes to the application configuration file. If you have a service that you know is going to be used by several applications or is generic enough to be used in several places, you'll want to continue using the generated proxy classes. We use proxy in WCF to be able to share the service contract and entities with the client. Proxies have several restrictions like they need to have gets and sets , contructors can't be exposed , methods other than the service contract cannot be exposed, repetition of code, everytime that we add/modify a service contract/data contract/message contract we need to re-generate the proxy for the client.
When to use ChannelFactory
The other option is using the ChannelFactory class to construct a channel between the client and the service without the need of a proxy . In some cases, you may have a service that is tightly bound to the client application. In such a case, it makes sense to reference the Interface DLL directly and use ChannelFactory to call your methods using that. One significant advantage of the ChannelFactory route is that it gives you access to methods that wouldn't otherwise be available if you used svcutil.exe..
When to use a ChannelFactory vs Proxy class?
A DLL is helpful if the client code is under you control and you'd like to share more than just the service contract with the client -- such as some utility methods associated with entities and make the client & the service code more tightly bound. If you know that your entities will not change much and the client code is less, then a DLL would work better than a proxy. If the client to your service is external to the system, such as API, it makes sense to use a proxy, because it makes sharing the contract easier by giving a code file rather than a DLL."

We cant see the class
MountToOsClient: IMountToOs
So we can only assume it is ok.
[DataContract] // Missing
public class MyTestClass
{
[DataMember] // Missing
public string A { get; set; }
[DataMember] // Missing
public string B { get; set; }
}
MountToOsClient can not expose Mytestclass without these attributes.

Transport classes by WCF

My goal is to load an external class in a running application environment (like a plugin model). Creating an instances of the class in an running environment is not the problem (the classes using an Interface). The problem is to get the class which must be available from a central WCF services.
Is it possible to transport an class or assembly to the client by using WCF?
Something like this:
[ServiceContract]
public interface ISourceData
{
[OperationContract]
xxx GetClassData { get; set; } // <-- here to get data the class to app can create an instances of this
}
I hope that you understand my situation. Thanks.

First of all, the attribute in your sample above must be OperationContract, not DataContract. The DataContract attribute is for the class that you want to return in GetClassData.
The problem in your situation is that on the client side the class itself is not replicated when you add the service reference, but a stub is generated for the properties that you define in your DataContract. So you get the data, but not the logic.
You could now create an assembly which defines the data classes to be exchanged and add them to both the service and the client, but as I understand your question, you want to dynamically load assemblies in the service and send these "implementations" to the client without the client actually having access to the DLL that implements the class. This may not be possible in an easy way.
EDIT
Re-reading your question I now understand that you do not want to "transfer an instance", but you want to transfer the class definition. One way would be to actually transfer the source code for the class and try to use Reflection.Emit to create a dynamic assembly. A sample of this can be found here.

Yes , you can .
and also you must to define the type of your class like ↓
[ServiceKnownType(typeof(xxx))]
public interface IService

I think you need the assembly on the client so you need to transfer the dll containing the assembly to the client, then have the client save it in a plugins directory for the app and have the app and load it from there.
Although I image that this is going to be a permissions nightmare to get the app to be able to use the dlls downloaded from the service.

You would mark up the classes used in your interface like this:
[ServiceContract]
public interface ISourceData
{
[OperationContract]
MyClass GetClassData();
}
[DataContract]
public class MyClass
{
[DataMember]
public string MyMember1 {get; set;} // included in transport
public int MyMember2 {get; set;} // not included
}

Class constructor (from C# web service) won't auto-implement properties in C# MVC

I'm running two instances of VS2010 on my local machine. One instance is running my Web Service (written in C#). The other instance is running my MVC web app (also C#). The MVC web app has a reference to the web service. I can successfully invoke web service methods from within the MVC app.
In my web service is a PageNavigation class:
// PageNavigation.cs
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
public class PageNavigation
{
public string Page_Number { get; set; }
public string Page_Count { get; set; }
public PageNavigation()
{
Page_Number = "1";
Page_Count = "2";
}
}
By default, this should return an object with auto-implemented properties when I call the class constructor:
WebService.PageNavigation pageNavigation = new WebService.PageNavigation();
This works when constructing a PageNavigation object elsewhere in the web service.
pageNavigation.Page_Number
"1"
pageNavigation.Page_Count
"2"
However, running the same line of code on the MVC isn't giving the same result; the object's properties are all null values.
pageNavigation.Page_Number
null
pageNavigation.Page_Count
null
Is this the expected behavior? Is there a way to populate the properties with default values as intended? If more information is needed please let me know and I will update the question.

The service reference only sees the schema of your object, not business logic; in your case, your service reference just created a shell data type in the MVC application. When you create a service reference, it's actually creating another type with the same property names and types as the type defined in the service.
For your particular scenario (simply providing default property values and not more general business logic), you should be able to apply the [System.ComponentModel.DefaultValue] attribute to your properties in order for the class generator to recognize that these properties should be populated with a default value.
Incidentally, if the service reference were reusing existing types (if you had this type in a common library that was referenced both by the service and the application, for example), then your business logic would be intact.
An alternative would be to implement a factory pattern, whereby you call a function on the web service that instantiates (and optionally populates) the data object, then returns it to the client.

Yes, this is expected behaviour. The MVC site is not actually using your PageNavigation class. It is a simple copy (generated when you add the web service reference) containing of all the properties, but none of the methods, including the constructor.
You could work around this by refactoring your service so the entities are in a separate assembly and then you can reuse this assembly on the client as an option when you generate the proxy.

If you insist on using the same types between client and service, then on the "Advanced" tab of the "Add Service Reference" dialog, you can choose to reuse the types in your server assembly.
I would move that class out of the service and into a class library project referenced by the service and by the client.
And I wouldn't do this for such a small reason as default values. this violates SOA by coupling the service and the client. It will obviously not work for clients which are not running .NET.

What serializer are you using to deserialize the response from the server? Some of them (like the DataContractSerializer for example) do not call the default constructor.
The solution that you should use if you are in fact using DataContractSerializer is to use the OnDeserialized attribute like this:
using System.Runtime.Serialization;
public class PageNavigation
{
public string Page_Number { get; set; }
public string Page_Count { get; set; }
public PageNavigation()
{
Init();
}
[OnDeserialize]
void Init()
{
Page_Number = "1";
Page_Count = "2";
}
}