We Keep Coding

Azure.Messaging.EventGrid vs Azure.EventGrid IotHubDeviceTelemetryEventData missing Constructor?

I am attempting to use the newer Azure.Messaging.EventGrid over the traditional Azure.EventGrid. I am getting hung up on my unit tests attempting to create object of type IotHubDeviceTelemetryEventData(). In the older library, I was able to create this no problem using the following convention.
return new object[]
{
new
{
id = "73813f6e-4d43-eb85-d6f1-f2b6a0657731",
topic = "testTopic",
data = new IotHubDeviceTelemetryEventData <-- New Up the object (no problem!)
{
Body = body} <-- Body has a setter. Great!
,
eventType = "Microsoft.Devices.DeviceTelemetry",
subject = "devices/b82bfa90fb/gw-uplink",
dataVersion = "1.0"
}
With the latest offering however, all of this is removed for some reason.
Old documentation with constructor etc (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/microsoft.azure.eventgrid.models.iothubdevicetelemetryeventdata.-ctor?view=azure-dotnet
New documentation with no constructor, no setter on the body (DeviceTelemetry is sealed) etc:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/azure.messaging.eventgrid.systemevents.iothubdevicetelemetryeventdata?view=azure-dotnet
Anyone run into this? I would like to get off the old but I have existing unit tests that logically create TelemetryEventData and send to the function. I see no way of unit testing this ? I have tried mocking IotHubDeviceTelemetryEventData with
_mockHubTelemEventData.setup(c => c.Body).Returns(foo)
but this as well throws me an error of no setter on Body.
Super frustrating.
Other attempts have included creating EventGridEvent() but this as well is missing core functionality as the EventGridEvent.parse won't find any object of type Body.
EventGridEvent[] egEvents = EventGridEvent.ParseMany(BinaryData.FromStream(req.Body));

Mocking code you don't own comes with downsides, and you just one of them. But that's not why you're here. If you want to create instances of IotHubDeviceTelemetryEventData, you can try creating them as JSON and deserialize them. Give this a shot:
using System.Text.Json;
using Azure.Messaging.EventGrid.SystemEvents;
var json = #"
{
""body"":
{
""property"": { ""foo"": ""bar"" }
}
}
";
var eventData = JsonSerializer.Deserialize<IotHubDeviceTelemetryEventData>(json);

Solidworks C# can't extract item from feature that has TypeName equals "Reference"

i have opened solidworks assembly (swDocumentTypes_e.swDocASSEMBLY) using C# and i have iterated through all the features in order to get all the Sketchs called 'ISO/XXX' under each part of the assembly, here is the code
public void openFile(string skeletonFilePath)
{
object[] Features = null;
int i = 0;
string FeatType = null;[1]
string FeatTypeName = null;
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(skeletonFilePath)) { return; }
ModelDoc2 model = _sldWorks.OpenDoc("C:PATH/fileName.SLDASM", (int)swDocumentTypes_e.swDocASSEMBLY);
Feature swFeat = default(Feature);
SelectionMgr swSelMgr = default(SelectionMgr);
swSelMgr = (SelectionMgr)model.SelectionManager;
swFeat = (Feature)model.FirstFeature();
while ((swFeat != null))
{
FeatType = swFeat.Name;
FeatTypeName = swFeat.GetTypeName2();
if ((FeatTypeName == "Reference")
{
Debug.Print(" Name of feature: " + swFeat.Name);
Debug.Print(" Type of feature: " + swFeat.GetTypeName2());
}
swFeat = (Feature)swFeat.GetNextFeature();
}
}
the problem:
each time i try to extract the items under the feature (of one part) i got an exception, i have to tried these ways:
swFeat.GetDefinition() // i've got null exception
swFeat.GetSpecificFeature2() // i've got dynamic value which i don't know the class i need to cast with
var childs = (Object[])swFeatSupport.GetChildren(); // i've got only to constraints under the part
example of project

Your code is only iterating over top level features. You can use IFeature::GetFirstSubFeature() and IFeature::GetNextSubFeature to get sub feature. Make this function recursive so it will iterate over all features, regardless of how many levels deep they are. Another layer you need to consider is the components - you need to iterate over components in an assembly first if you need feature data in the context of individual parts.
Here's an example from the Solidworks API documentation. Its poorly written (IMO) but it will guide you in the right direction.

C# and IronPython integration

I want simply use io.py from C# to write a file and I use the following code:
using Microsoft.Scripting.Hosting;
using IronPython.Hosting;
...
System.IO.Directory.SetCurrentDirectory(
Environment.GetFolderPath(Environment.SpecialFolder.ProgramFiles) +
"\IronPython\Lib");
ScriptRuntime py = Python.CreateRuntime();
dynamic io = py.UseFile("io.py");
dynamic f = io.open("tmp.txt", "w");
f.writelines("some text...");
f.close();
but when I run the program the runtime give me a:
Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.RuntimeBinderException telling that no overload of writelines accept argument '1'
it seems like that method doesn't exists... but into io.py documentation it exists.
P.S. The same is for close method!!!
Any idea?

I can only tell you how to make your code working, however I don't have much experience with IronPython and have no idea why it is done this way (though I try to learn that). First, it seems io module is treated in a special way and there is special (non-dynamic) class for that. When you do io.open what is returned is instance of PythonIOModule._IOBase class. You can do
var f = (PythonIOModule._IOBase) io.open("tmp.txt", "w");
And see for yourself that "writeline" method (which is regular method, not a dynamic one) accepts CodeContext instance as first argument, and second argument is lines. Interesting that this class itself already contains field with that CodeContext, but it is made internal for some reason, and what is even worse - writelines (and other methods) could have been using that CodeContext and not require us to provide external one. Why is it done like this - I have no idea.
So to make your code working, we have to get CodeContext somewhere. One way is do that via reflection:
var context = (CodeContext) f.GetType().GetField("context", BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic).GetValue(f);
Another way is to craft it yourself:
var languageContext = HostingHelpers.GetLanguageContext(engine);
var context = new ModuleContext(io._io, new PythonContext(languageContext.DomainManager, new Dictionary<string, object>())).GlobalContext;
Both methods will work and program will successfully write to a file. Full working sample:
static void Main(string[] args) {
System.IO.Directory.SetCurrentDirectory(#"G:\Python27\Lib");
var engine = Python.CreateEngine();
dynamic io = engine.ImportModule("io");
var f = (PythonIOModule._IOBase) io.open("tmp.txt", "w");
var languageContext = HostingHelpers.GetLanguageContext(engine);
var context = new ModuleContext(io._io, new PythonContext(languageContext.DomainManager, new Dictionary<string, object>())).GlobalContext;
f.writelines(context, "some text....");
f.close(context);
}

Auto-generated code needs to make static class

I decided to help my friend with a project he's working on. I'm trying to write a test webpage for him to verify some new functionality, but in my auto-generated code I get
CS1106: Extension method must be defined in a non-generic static class
Implementing the code in index.cshtml isn't the best way to do this, but we are just trying to do a proof of concept and will do a proper implementation later.
In all the places I looked they pretty much said that all the functions I define must be in a static class (as the error states). That wouldn't be so bad except for the class that holds all my functions is auto-generated and not static. I'm not really sure what settings I can change to fix this.
Here is a copy of the relevant (I believe) parts of code. The implementation of some or all of the functions may be incorrect. I haven't tested them yet
#{
HttpRequest req = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request;
HttpResponse resp = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Response;
var url = req.QueryString["url"];
//1 Download web data from URL
//2 Write the final edited version of the document to the response object using resp.write(String x);
//3 Add Script tag for dom-outline-1.0 to html agility pack document
//4 Search for relative URLs and correct them to become absolute URL's that point back to the hostname
}
#functions
{
public static void PrintNodes(this HtmlAgilityPack.HtmlNode tag)
{
HttpResponse resp = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Response;
resp.Write(tag.Name + tag.InnerHtml);
if (!tag.HasChildNodes)
{
return;
}
PrintNodes(tag.FirstChild);
}
public static void AddScriptNode(this HtmlAgilityPack.HtmlNode headNode, HtmlAgilityPack.HtmlDocument htmlDoc, string filePath)
{
string content = "";
using (StreamReader rdr = File.OpenText(filePath))
{
content = rdr.ReadToEnd();
}
if (headNode != null)
{
HtmlAgilityPack.HtmlNode scripts = htmlDoc.CreateElement("script");
scripts.Attributes.Add("type", "text/javascript");
scripts.AppendChild(htmlDoc.CreateComment("\n" + content + "\n"));
headNode.AppendChild(scripts);
}
}
}
<HTML CODE HERE>

If you were really smart you would encapsulate the design to take Delegates, reason being if you use a delegate you don't have to worry about referencing something static.
public delegate void MyUrlThing(string url, object optional = null);
Possibly some state...
public enum UrlState
{
None,
Good,
Bad
}
Then void would become UrlState...
Also if you wanted you could also setup a text box and blindly give it CIL....
Then you would compile the delegates using something like this
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/578116/Complete-Managed-Media-Aggregation-Part-III-Quantu
This way you can use also then optionally just use the IL to augment whatever you wanted.
You could also give it CSharp code I suppose...
If you want to keep you design you can also then optionally use interfaces... and then put the compiled dll in a directory and then load it etc... as traditionally

Create an "all-in-one" function using DS in C#

In my web app I use several asmx (Web Services) from the same provider, they have one for this, other for that, but all require a SOAP Header with Authentication.
It is simple to add the Authentication:
public static SoCredentialsHeader AttachCredentialHeader()
{
SoCredentialsHeader ch = new SoCredentialsHeader();
ch.AuthenticationType = SoAuthenticationType.CRM5;
ch.UserId = "myUsername";
ch.Secret = apUtilities.CalculateCredentialsSecret(
SoAuthenticationType.CRM5, apUtilities.GetDays(), "myUsername", "myPassword");
return ch;
}
The problem is this SoCredentialsHeader come (derivation) from ONE webservice and I need to add the same code to the others, like:
public static wsContact.SoCredentialsHeader AttachContactCredentialHeader()
{
wsContact.SoCredentialsHeader ch = new wsContact.SoCredentialsHeader();
ch.AuthenticationType = wsContact.SoAuthenticationType.CRM5;
ch.UserId = "myUsername";
ch.Secret = apUtilities.CalculateCredentialsSecret(
wsContact.SoAuthenticationType.CRM5, apUtilities.GetDays(), "myUsername", "myPassword");
return ch;
}
public static wsDiary.SoCredentialsHeader AttachDiaryCredentialHeader()
{
wsDiary.SoCredentialsHeader ch = new wsDiary.SoCredentialsHeader();
ch.AuthenticationType = wsDiary.SoAuthenticationType.CRM5;
ch.UserId = "myUsername";
ch.Secret = apUtilities.CalculateCredentialsSecret(
wsDiary.SoAuthenticationType.CRM5, apUtilities.GetDays(), "myUsername", "myPassword");
return ch;
}
Is there a way to implement a design pattern in order to use only one function but that suits all webServices?
sometimes I see the T letter, is this a case for that? if yes, how can I accomplish such feature?
P.S. I could pass an enum and use a switch to check the enum name and apply the correct Header but everytime I need to add a new WebService, I need to add the enum and the code, I'm searcging for an advanced technique for this.
Thank you.

Create a file called whatever.tt (the trick is the .tt extension) anywhere in your VS solution and paste the following code:
using System;
namespace Whatever
{
public static class Howdy
{
<#
string[] webServices = new string[] {"wsContact", "wsDiary"};
foreach (string wsName in webServices)
{
#>
public static <#=wsName#>.SoCredentialsHeader AttachContactCredentialHeader()
{
<#=wsName#>.SoCredentialsHeader ch = new <#=wsName#>.SoCredentialsHeader();
ch.AuthenticationType = <#=wsName#>.SoAuthenticationType.CRM5;
ch.UserId = "myUsername";
ch.Secret = apUtilities.CalculateCredentialsSecret(<#=wsName#>.SoAuthenticationType.CRM5,
apUtilities.GetDays(), "myUsername", "myPassword");
return ch;
}
}
<# } #>
}
Then watch as a whatever.cs magically appears with the desired code snippets.These are called T4 templates for code generation in VS.
You'll want to turn these into partial classes or extension methods or something. The above code will not function "as is" but you get the idea.

I don't know if this is something you wish to consider, as it definitely has it's down sides, but - as ultimately these ( the varoius SoCredentialsHeader classes) are all copies of the same class definition in different namespaces so with a little bit of refactoring you could simply have one class and one method.
Copy the SoCredentialsHeader class definition to a project of your own, add a reference to it and remove the class definition from all web service's proxies.
Add a using statement at the top of the proxy code file and it would not tell the difference.
Basically you told it to use the same class definition (yours) for all web services.
The obvious down side is that you have to repeat this exercise whenever you update and web service reference (and that it assumes all services keep using the same definition), but we've been doing this in a similar scenario and it worked quite well for us.

I would try using a generic method, then use reflection to set the properties:
public static T AttachDiaryCredentialHeader<T>() where T: class
{
T ch = new T();
Type objType = ch.GetType();
PropertyInfo userId = objType.GetProperty("UserId");
authType.SetValue(ch, "myUsername", null)
//And so on for the other properties...
return ch;
}
IMHO, This is somewhat hacky, I would keep them separate, unless like the previous post mentioned it, you're absolutely sure the definitions of these services will remain the same. One minor change to one of them will break this.