We Keep Coding

ASP.NET Core - Multiple instances of Logger

I am right now working with Logging using ASP.NET Core LoggerFactory (Serilog extension). I want to put logs in controller and business service methods. I have done that via constructor injection of ILogger like this
In controller:
ILogger<HomeController> _logger
In Service:
ILogger<ServiceName> _logger
I believe this will be instantiated at each request, so for each HTTP request, it will create multiple instances of Logger. Say for each controller and each service class but it is bit different than previous methods of logging where we used to create only one logger instance and use that for logging stuff everywhere.
Any downside for this?

This is totally fine. Typically, it's cheap to instantiate a logger, so it's totally OK to do it like that performance-wise.
Still, consider either (1) using the global log instance which Serilog has or (2) using static field initialized in a field declaration. Again, not for the performance reasons, but rather to avoid polluting your constructor with not-so-relevant stuff.
UPD Update on implementing (1)
Basically, it's just a matter of deciding where would you put the logger init code into. In a ASP.NET Core it would be the first line of Main method (that Log is a static class from Serilog namespace):
Log.Logger = new LoggerConfiguration().WriteTo.LiterateConsole(LogEventLevel.Debug, LogTemplate)
.WriteTo.File(#"C:\logs\elbakogdabot.log", LogEventLevel.Debug, LogTemplate)
.Enrich.FromLogContext()
.CreateLogger();
(just to be clear: I took the code from a real project of mine, but the actual configuration of your logger could be different).
Then I would use it anywhere like this:
Log.Warning($"got a message for an unknown user: userid=[{userId}]");
This line could be thrown into any class and you don't have to do any extra initialization for that class.
UPD Update on implementing (2)
I guess in a typical enterprise app it would be inconvenient to have always remember to put the class name in the message every time you logging something. So I would go with static readonly field most of the time. With Serilog you can do it like that:
public class XYZService
{
private static readonly Serilog.ILogger log = Log.ForContext<XYZService>();
...
This way you both won't pollute the constructor, and will get the class name in all of your log messages automatically. I used to have this line in a ReSharper snippet, so I had to just type lg<TAB> in every new class.

IoC logger with parameters

I'm currently playing around with the IoC concept (with a WPF app) and I haven't decided on the tool I'll used with it just yet as I'm still trying to get the grasp of it but I'm confused as to how this would be configured regarding the specific parameters each component.
I understand how you define the relevant library in the config file and how it will determine which one should be used by the app and what its lifespan should be but what about each library requiring its own specific set of parameters.
Where do you get these from and when do you pass them on?
Taking your typical logger for example.
I have the following interface:
public interface ILogger
{
void Write(string message);
}
I have the logger class itself:
public class Logger : ILogger
{
private readonly ILogger _logger;
public Logger (ILogger logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public void Write(string message)
{
_logger.Write(message);
}
}
I then define multiple loggers each requiring their own parameter, so I implemented the following:
a) database logger: where a connection string is required so that I can log my message to a database.
public void LoggerDb: ILogger
{
public void Write(string message)
{
}
public ConnectionString {get; set;}
}
b) file logger: where a filename is required so that I can log my message to the relevant log file.
public void LoggerFile: ILogger
{
public void Write(string message)
{
}
public Filename {get; set;}
}
c) console logger: where no parameter is required as I just want to output my message to a console window.
public void LoggerConsole: ILogger
{
public void Write(string message)
{
}
}
In my console test app, I've got the following code in the Program.cs:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string logTypeId = "d";
ILogger logType;
if (logTypeId == "d")
{
logType = new LoggerDb("Data Source=....");
}
else if (logTypeId == "f"
{
logType = new LoggerFile("c:\\mylog.txt");
}
else
{
logType = new LoggerConsole();
}
Logger logger = new Logger(logType);
logger.Write("Message 1");
logger.Write("Message 2");
logger.Write("Message 3");
}
I understand this is not how the code would be if I used an IoC tool. I'm just trying to highlight what I'm trying to achieve and I'm trying to get answers to the following questions:
Can this be achieved using an IoC tool i.e. pass specific parameter depending on the logger type that's used/defined in the IoC section of the app.config?
Is this the correct approach i.e. Having specific loggers with their own constructors parameters? If not, can you explain why and what should be the correct approach. I don't mind the IoC tool you use. I just want to understand how this should be done.
Where should these additional parameters be stored in the app.config?

First, note that in order to implement DI via an IoC, it is by no means required to configure your container in a configuration file (although it's certainly an option and many containers support it).
Most IoC containers these days also allow you to specify your setup in code. So I guess the answer is: it really depends on the IoC container you plan to use. My opinion: avoid xml-based configuration if you can; it's often a pain to maintain and brings little value if you ask me. In your code-based configuration you can still refer to configuration parameters from app.config or other.
You can also turn the question around: is it a requirement to have the container configuration in a separate file (and why)? If yes, look for a container that supports this well. But most do.
Some examples of configuration using a code-based DSL:
Autofac modules: http://docs.autofac.org/en/latest/configuration/modules.html
StructureMap: http://structuremap.github.io/registration/registry-dsl/
Some examples of xml configuration:
Autofac: http://docs.autofac.org/en/latest/configuration/xml.html
Spring.NET container: http://www.springframework.net/doc-latest/reference/html/objects.html
structuremap: http://docs.structuremap.net/configuring-structuremap/structuremap-xml-configuration/

It depends ;)
I can't speak for all DependencyInjection Tools, but many of them should support this functionality.
I don't see anything that speak against this. If you want to call different Loggers explicitly, you can do this. But you can also use some kind of LogListeners. One for DB, one for File and so on. And your Logger just delegates the LogMessage to all Loggers. But this depends on what you want or need ;)
This also depends on the implementation of the Logger. It's common to store the ConnectionString in the config. The other parameters are too specific, but you you can store them in config, too.

LibLog - Asserting calls to the logger

When using LibLog, is it possible to assert calls to the logger? Given the wiki lists the following example for usage:
public class MyClass
{
private static readonly ILog Logger = LogProvider.For<MyClass>();
}
Here the logger is an implementation detail hidden from the consumer, which is most of the benefit of using this library. Such that the library consumer does not have to worry about how loggers are instantiated. Looking at this blog post:
http://dhickey.ie/2015/06/capturing-log-output-in-tests-with-xunit2/
It seems that a lot of boiler plate is added to capture the log output, I'm not entirely sure about the approach, given that it also uses a redirected Serilog output in the unit test, something that seems odd given the library should only rely on the logging abstraction?
The only options I can currently think of are:
Inject the logger - This probably would be odd for the consumer of the library, and each library then would carry it's own ILogger definition that needs to be injected, defeating the advantages of the abstraction.
Wire up to a real logging framework - Set the current LogProvider for LibLog to use Log4Net or similar, and then somehow try and inject a mock / stub Logger into Log4Net, and assert calls via proxy.
Any relatively simple way to assert calls to the logger would be appreciated, but I suspect parallel test execution would cause problems even if it was possible to assert calls on the above logger?

In the logging config for almost all loggers you can configure then to throw exception when log fail.
Sample from nlog
<nlog throwExceptions="true">
... your nlog config
</nlog>
But in the abstraction created by LibLog you lost this features

What I've done in my project:
I've created my LoggerFactory. It exposes same static methods as NLogger.
public class LoggerFactory
{
private static ILoggerFactoryStrategy _loggerFactoryStrategy = new DummyLoggerFactoryStrategy();
public static void Initialize(ILoggerFactoryStrategy loggerFactoryStrategy)
{
_loggerFactoryStrategy = loggerFactoryStrategy;
}
public ILogger GetLogger<T>()
{
return _loggerFactoryStrategy.GetLogger<T>();
}
....
}
Dummy strategy can write just to debug output or do nothing. Another strategy could look smth like:
public class LoggerFactoryStrategy : ILoggerFactoryStrategy
{
public ILogger GetLogger<T>()
{
//create LibLog instance instead with LogProvider.For<T>()
var nlogger = LogManager.GetLogger(typeof(T).Name); //create instance of NLogger
return new NLogLogger(nlogger);
}
}
And NlogLogger wrapper could be smth like
internal class NLogLogger : ILogger
{
private readonly Logger _logger;
public NLogLogger(Logger logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public void Debug(string message)
{
_logger.Debug(message);
}
public void Warn(string message, params object[] args)
{
_logger.Warn(message, args);
}
public void Info(Exception exception)
{
_logger.Info(exception);
}
......
}
When application starts I initialize it with proper strategy what uses NLogger under the hood.
If I want to test calls to logger I can use mocked strategy.
This approach lets you to remove references to logger library across your solution, except your root projects and lets you switch from one to another if you need in the future.
Also, this allowed us to use NLogger in PCL projects.

Logging as a decorator vs. Dependency Injection - what if I need to log inside the class?

(I originally asked this question in this comment, but Mark Seemann asked me to create a new question instead.)
I'm starting a new app (.NET Core, if that matters), and right now I'm trying to decide how exactly to do logging.
The general consensus seems to be that logging is a cross-cutting concern, so the logger shouldn't be injected directly into the class that is supposed to log.
Often, there's an example like the following class how not to do it:
public class BadExample : IExample
{
private readonly ILogger logger;
public BadExample(ILogger logger)
{
this.logger = logger;
}
public void DoStuff()
{
try
{
// do the important stuff here
}
catch (Exception e)
{
this.logger.Error(e.ToString());
}
}
}
Instead, the class with the business logic shouldn't know about the logger (SRP) and there should be a separate class which does the logging:
public class BetterExample : IExample
{
public void DoStuff()
{
// do the important stuff here
}
}
public class LoggingBetterExample : IExample
{
private readonly IExample betterExample;
private readonly ILogger logger;
public LoggingBetterExample(IExample betterExample, ILogger logger)
{
this.betterExample = betterExample;
this.logger = logger;
}
public void DoStuff()
{
try
{
this.betterExample.DoStuff();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
this.logger.Error(e.ToString());
}
}
}
Whenever an IExample is needed, the DI container returns an instance of LoggingBetterExample, which uses BetterExample (which contains the actual business logic) under the hood.
Some sources for this approach:
Blog posts by Mark Seemann:
Instrumentation with Decorators and Interceptors
Dependency Injection is Loose Coupling
Blog post and SO answer by Steven:
Meanwhile... on the command side of my architecture
Windsor - pulling Transient objects from the container
My question:
Obviously, the LoggingBetterExample approach only works as long as the logging can be done outside the actual class.
(like in the example above: catch any exceptions thrown by BetterExample from outside)
My problem is that I'd like to log other things inside the actual class.
Mark Seemann suspected here that if someone needs to do this, maybe the method in question is doing too much.
As I said before, I'm in the planning phase for a new application, so I don't have much code to show, but the use case I'm thinking right now is something like this:
My app will have a config file with some optional values.
The user may decide to omit the optional values, but it's an important decision to do this.
So I'd like to log a warning when some of the optional values are missing, just in case it happened by error.
(omitting the values is perfectly fine though, so I can't just throw an exception and stop)
This means that I will have a class which reads config values and needs to do something like this (pseudocode):
var config = ReadConfigValues("path/to/config.file");
if (config.OptionalValue == null)
{
logger.Warn("Optional value not set!");
}
No matter if ReadConfigValues is in this class or a different one, I don't think this class would violate the SRP.
When I'm not able to log outside the actual class by using a decorator, is there a better solution than to inject the logger?
I know I could read the config file in the inner class, but check the values (and log the warning) in the decorator. But IMO checking the value is business logic and not infrastructure, so to me it belongs in the same class where the config file is read.

checking the value is business logic and not intfastructure, so to me it belongs in the same class where the config file is read.
Obviously, I don't know your domain well enough to dispute the truth of that assertion, but that logging is part of the domain model sounds strange to me. Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's assume that this is the case.
What ought not to be the case, though, is that reading a configuration file is domain logic. While reading and manipulating the data from a file could easily be domain logic, reading a file is I/O.
The most common approach to Inversion of Control in application architecture is to employ the Ports & Adapters architecture. The entire point of such an architecture is to decouple the domain model from I/O, and other sources of non-determinism. The poster example is to show how to decouple the domain model from its database access, but file access falls squarely in that category as well.
What this ought to imply in this particular case is that you're going to need some IConfigurationReader interface anyway. This means that you can apply a Decorator:
public class ValidatingConfigurationReader : IConfigurationReader
{
private readonly IConfigurationReader reader;
private readonly ILogger logger;
public ValidatingConfigurationReader(IConfigurationReader reader, ILogger logger)
{
this.reader = reader;
this.logger = logger;
}
public MyConfiguration ReadConfigValues(string filePath)
{
var config = this.reader.ReadConfigValues(filePath);
if (config.OptionalValue == null)
{
this.logger.Warn("Optional value not set!");
}
return config;
}
}
This ValidatingConfigurationReader class can be implemented in the domain model, even if the underlying, file-reading IConfigurationReader implementation belongs in some I/O layer.

Don't take SRP so seriously, otherwise you'll end up with functional programming. If you afraid of getting your class cluttered by putting log statements inside it, then you have two options. The first one you already mentioned which is using a Decorator class but you can't access/log the private stuff. The second option is using partial classes and putting the logging statements in a separate class.

How do I make log4net.dll optional?

I use log4net to implement logging in my .NET app.
However I do not want to distribute the 300kb log4net.dll for every user but instead send this dll to the user if he has problems and I want him to provide logs.
So, is it possible to make my app run whether or not the dll is there?
Of course for logging the dll would be needed, but if no logging is needed, the app should run without the dll.

Yes, it is possible.
First create an interfase with all your log methods:
public interface ILogger
{
void Write(string message);
// And much more methods.
}
Now create two instances, a dummy instance (lets call it DummyLogger), and a instance which will send its messages to Log4Net (Log4NetLogger).
To finish, create a factory class:
static public class LogFactory
{
static public ILogger CreateLogger()
{
if (/*Check if Log4Net is available*/)
return new Log4NetLogger();
else
return new DummyLogger();
}
}
You could check if Log4Net is available by simply checking if the file is in your bin-folder. Something like:
File.Exists(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory + "Log4Net.dll")
But I can imagine that you want to do other checks, like if it exists in the GAC or whatever.
Now you can use your factory to create your logger and "write" messages to the log:
ILogger logger = LoggerFactory.CreateLogger();
logger.Write("I am logging something!");