Extenject - NullReferenceException when second time inject - unity3d

I'm new at Zenject(Extenject).
My dev environment: Win10, Unity2020, Extenject 9.2.0
Here is my question:
In installer bind the class
Container.Bind<AccountInfo>().AsCached();
Inject it at classA
private AccountInfo accountInfo;
[Inject]
private void Init(GameSetup _gameSetup, AccountInfo _accountInfo)
{
this.gameSetup = _gameSetup;
this.accountInfo = _accountInfo;
}
accountInfo.address = "xxx'; // works fine
Then inject AccountInfo to classB
private AccountInfo accountInfo;
[Inject]
private void Init(AccountInfo _accountInfo)
{
this.accountInfo = _accountInfo;
}
accountInfo.address = "xxx'; //NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
Why accountInfo changed to null? AsCached() dosen't work? Or something worng else?
Help please~~ Thank you!
Here is my code:
Installer
"ClassA" inject GameSetup, and create instance, works fine
"ClassB" inject GameSetup, Error: null object
"ClassB" Creator, I'm trying use container.Instantiate() to create it
---update---
gameSetup still Null Object

There are two cases, when injection will not work properly in your code.
The code, that uses injected object is executed before Init. For example if this code is placed in the construcor.
You create your GameObject/Component in runtime whithout using IInstantiator. While you use Znject you always should use IInstantiator to create objects. To do it you should inject IInstantiator to the object, that creates another objects. IItstantiator is always binded in the container by default, so you don't have to bind it manually. For example:
public class Creator : MonoBehaviour {
[SerializeField]
private GameObject _somePrefab;
private IInstantiator _instantiator;
[Inject]
public void Initialize(IInstantiator instantiator) {
_instantiator = instantiator;
}
private void Start() {
// example of creating components
var gameObj = new GameObject(); // new empty gameobjects can be created without IInstantiator
_instantiator.InstantiateComponent<YourComponentClass>(gameObj);
// example of instantiating prefab
var prefabInstance = _instantiator.InstantiatePrefab(_somePrefab);
}
}

Not an expert but I think that passing IInstantiator or the container around is not a good practice. If you need to create injected instances at runtime, then you need a Factory.
From the documentation
1.- Best practice with DI is to only reference the container in the composition root "layer"
Note that factories are part of this layer and the container can be referenced there (which is necessary to create objects at runtime).
2.- "When instantiating objects directly, you can either use DiContainer or you can use IInstantiator, which DiContainer inherits from. However, note that injecting the DiContainer is usually a sign of bad practice, since there is almost always a better way to design your code such that you don't need to reference DiContainer directly".
3.- "Once again, best practice with dependency injection is to only reference the DiContainer in the "composition root layer""

Related

Zenject: MonoBehaviour injection

I'm new to Zenject and this is my first project using this asset. I'm having injection problems! Maybe someone knows what I am doing wrong or where the error might be. In the code below, _spawnArea is not initialized.
public class BootstrapIniter : MonoInstaller
{
[SerializeField] private Camera _mainCamera;
[Space(10)]
[SerializeField] private Spawner _spawner;
public override void InstallBindings()
{
BindMain();
BindBallHandle();
}
private void BindMain()
{
Container.Bind<Camera>().FromInstance(_mainCamera).AsSingle();
}
private void BindBallHandle()
{
Container.Bind<Spawner>().FromInstance(_spawner).AsSingle();
}
}
[RequireComponent(typeof(SpawnArea))]
public class Spawner : MonoBehaviour
{
private SpawnArea _spawnArea;
private void Awake()
{
_spawnArea = GetComponent<SpawnArea>();
}
[Inject]
public void Construct(Camera camera)
{
Rect cameraRect = camera.pixelRect;
_spawnArea.Init(cameraRect);
}
}
Thanks in advance for the answer or direction in which to look for a solution
I think that you did not inject your instance.
From the documentaiton "FromInstance - Adds a given instance to the container. Note that the given instance will not be injected in this case. If you also want your instance to be injected at startup, see QueueForInject" (QueueForInject will queue the given instance for injection once the initial object graph is constructed). Basically you need to inject your instance for the injected methods to execute.
On the other hand I dont see the point of binding a monobehaviour from instance, as you have to generate the instance bind it to the container and then inject it. You have binding methods that do this all at once for you, check the section "Construction Methods".
Check for example: FromComponentInNewPrefabResource - Instantiate the given prefab (found at the given resource path) as a new game object, inject any MonoBehaviour's on it, and then search the result for type ResultType in a similar way that GetComponentInChildren works (in that it will return the first matching value found).
Note that for the injection to take place succesfully you have to previously wire up the dependency in the container with the Container.Bind statement so that the container knows what needs to be injected and how.
I suggest to read carefully the documentation which is very good and follow the examples along.

Why i need to declare a variable that have the same name of class and script?

public class CanvasManager : MonoBehaviour
{
public static CanvasManager Instance; // = lobby
[SerializeField]
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
public LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
...
below is one of the reference
private void Start()
{
GameObject lobbyCanvasGO = CanvasManager.Instance.LobbyFunction.gameObject;
...
I am confused that is it necessary to have the same name of canvasmanager that it is declared , and why there is no error when I sayCanvasManager.Instance.LobbyFunction ,it made me confused since LobbyFunction is belonged to CanvasManager, not Instance.
Finally , sometimes ,
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
private LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
Sometimes,
private LobbyFunction _lobbyFunction;
public LobbyFunction LobbyFunction
{
get { return _lobbyFunction; }
}
Thanks for your patience reading this, and your help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
Your class is named CanvasManager, but you cannot statically access it right away.
You created a static member variable in CanvasManager, which holds a reference to a CanvasManager. This is called the singleton pattern.
You can only access static members without a class instance. But in the case of singletons, you create a single instance of the class (usually assigned in Start() or in getInstance() (lazy) after checking if it exists) which you can then access statically through "Instance".
Now, Instance is a static variable holding a reference to a single instance of CanvasManager. So, you can then access non-static members and functions of CanvasManager, if you access "Instance".
Think about it like this:
CanvasManager local_instance = new CanvasManager();
local_instance.non_static_member = value; // this works
CanvasManager.static_member = value; // this works
CanvasManager.non_static_member = value; // won't work.
And now one step further, you access the instance via CanvasManager.Instance.*
CanvasManager.Instance.non_static_member = value; // works!
Explanation of static vs non-static:
normal variables:
Variables needs memory. So usually you create 5 instances of CanvasManager and each instance can have different values. Because each instance reserves memory for each Variable. But if you want to change one, you need to explicitly talk to that instance. You could manage them in a List or by having multiple variables in Code like manager1, manager2...
Think of it as books, where each copy can be modified (write notes into it)
static variables
If you create a static variable, the memory is reserved once for the Class. You can then directly get/set this static variable from anywhere in Code without the need of a Reference to an instance.
Think of it as an online blog, where changes are applied for everyone, being accessible from everywhere. The text exists once in the blog database.
Singletons:
If you only want a single CanvasManager and not 5, you could attach it to any GameObject and access it. But every other script needs a reference, like public CanvasManager my_manager which you need to assign in inspector. As an alterantive, you could use
GameObject.Find("CanvasManagerObject").getComponent<CanvasManager>()
in each script... If only there was a better way to access this CanvasManager from everywhere...
The singleton pattern allows you to get a reference to a single, nonstatic instance of the CanvasManager, while it doesn't even need a GameObject it can attach to.
Naming
You are talking about "it has to have the same name" - this is not true. You can name the instance whatever you like. CanvasManager.MyCustomlyNamedInstance would work too. But the MyCustomlyNamedInstance must be a static variable in the CanvasManager class, or any other class. You could have a GameManager that manages your instances, so GameManager.MyCanvasManagerInstance would work too.

How to resolve InstancePerLifetimeScope component from within SingleInstace component via Func?

The idea is just simple and works in the other containers, not limited with .Net:
Singleton component being referenced from within request context references transient component which in turn references request-scoped component (some UnitOfWork).
I expected that Autofac would resolve the same scoped component in both cases:
- when I request it directly from request scope
- when I request it by invoking Func<>
Unfortunately the reality is quite a bit different - Autofac sticks SingleInstance component to the root scope and resolves InstancePerLifetimeScope component on
the root component introducing memory leak (!!!) as UnitOfWork is disposable and becomes tracked by root scope (attempt to use matching web request scope would just fail finding request scope which is yet more misleading).
Now I'm wondering whether such behavior is by design or just a bug? If it is by design I'm not sure what are the use cases and why it differs from the other containers.
The example is as follows (including working SimpleInjector case):
namespace AutofacTest
{
using System;
using System.Linq;
using System.Linq.Expressions;
using Autofac;
using NUnit.Framework;
using SimpleInjector;
using SimpleInjector.Lifestyles;
public class SingletonComponent
{
public Func<TransientComponent> Transient { get; }
public Func<ScopedComponent> Scoped { get; }
public SingletonComponent(Func<TransientComponent> transient, Func<ScopedComponent> scoped)
{
Transient = transient;
Scoped = scoped;
}
}
public class ScopedComponent : IDisposable
{
public void Dispose()
{
}
}
public class TransientComponent
{
public ScopedComponent Scoped { get; }
public TransientComponent(ScopedComponent scopedComponent)
{
this.Scoped = scopedComponent;
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
try
{
AutofacTest();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
try
{
SimpleInjectorTest();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
}
private static void AutofacTest()
{
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
builder.RegisterType<ScopedComponent>().InstancePerLifetimeScope();
builder.RegisterType<SingletonComponent>().SingleInstance();
builder.RegisterType<TransientComponent>();
var container = builder.Build();
var outerSingleton = container.Resolve<SingletonComponent>();
using (var scope = container.BeginLifetimeScope())
{
var singleton = scope.Resolve<SingletonComponent>();
Assert.That(outerSingleton, Is.SameAs(singleton));
var transient = scope.Resolve<TransientComponent>();
var scoped = scope.Resolve<ScopedComponent>();
Assert.That(singleton.Transient(), Is.Not.SameAs(transient));
// this fails
Assert.That(singleton.Transient().Scoped, Is.SameAs(scoped));
Assert.That(transient.Scoped, Is.SameAs(scoped));
Assert.That(singleton.Scoped(), Is.SameAs(scoped)); // this fails
Assert.That(singleton.Transient(), Is.Not.SameAs(transient));
}
}
private static void SimpleInjectorTest()
{
var container = new SimpleInjector.Container();
container.Options.AllowResolvingFuncFactories();
container.Options.DefaultScopedLifestyle = new AsyncScopedLifestyle();
container.Register<ScopedComponent>(Lifestyle.Scoped);
container.Register<SingletonComponent>(Lifestyle.Singleton);
container.Register<TransientComponent>(Lifestyle.Transient);
container.Verify();
var outerSingleton = container.GetInstance<SingletonComponent>();
using (var scope = AsyncScopedLifestyle.BeginScope(container))
{
var singleton = container.GetInstance<SingletonComponent>();
Assert.That(outerSingleton, Is.SameAs(singleton));
var transient = container.GetInstance<TransientComponent>();
var scoped = container.GetInstance<ScopedComponent>();
Assert.That(singleton.Transient(), Is.Not.SameAs(transient));
Assert.That(singleton.Transient().Scoped, Is.SameAs(scoped));
Assert.That(transient.Scoped, Is.SameAs(scoped));
Assert.That(singleton.Scoped(), Is.SameAs(scoped));
Assert.That(singleton.Transient(), Is.Not.SameAs(transient));
}
}
}
public static class SimpleInjectorExtensions
{
public static void AllowResolvingFuncFactories(this ContainerOptions options)
{
options.Container.ResolveUnregisteredType += (s, e) =>
{
var type = e.UnregisteredServiceType;
if (!type.IsGenericType || type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() != typeof(Func<>))
{
return;
}
Type serviceType = type.GetGenericArguments().First();
InstanceProducer registration = options.Container.GetRegistration(serviceType, true);
Type funcType = typeof(Func<>).MakeGenericType(serviceType);
var factoryDelegate = Expression.Lambda(funcType, registration.BuildExpression()).Compile();
e.Register(Expression.Constant(factoryDelegate));
};
}
}
}
The short version what you're seeing is not a bug, you're just misunderstanding some of the finer points of lifetime scopes and captive dependencies.
First, a couple of background references from the Autofac docs:
Controlling Scope and Lifetime explains a lot about how lifetime scopes and that hierarchy works.
Captive Dependencies talks about why you don't generally shouldn't take an instance-per-lifetime or instance-per-dependency scoped item into a singleton.
Disposal talks about how Autofac auto-disposes IDisposable items and how you can opt out of that.
Implicit Relationship Types describes the Owned<T> relationship type used as part of the IDisposable opt-out.
Some big key takeaways from these docs that directly affect your situation:
Autofac tracks IDisposable components so they can be automatically disposed along with the lifetime scope. That means it will hold references to any resolved IDisposable objects until the parent lifetime scope is resolved.
You can opt out of IDisposable tracking either by registering the component as ExternallyOwned or by using Owned<T> in the constructor parameter being injected. (Instead of taking in an IDependency take in an Owned<IDependency>.)
Singletons live in the root lifetime scope. That means any time you resolve a singleton it will be resolved from the root lifetime scope. If it is IDisposable it will be tracked in the root lifetime scope and not released until that root scope - the container itself - is disposed.
The Func<T> dependency relationship is tied to the same lifetime scope as the object in which it's injected. If you have a singleton, that means the Func<T> will resolve things from the same lifetime scope as the singleton - the root lifetime scope. If you have something that's instance-per-dependency, the Func<T> will be attached to whatever scope the owning component is in.
Knowing that, you can see why your singleton, which takes in a Func<T>, keeps trying to resolve these things from the root lifetime scope. You can also see why you're seeing a memory leak situation - you haven't opted out of the disposal tracking for the things that are being resolved by that Func<T>.
So the question is, how do you fix it?
Option 1: Redesign
Generally speaking, it would be better to invert the relationship between the singleton and the thing you have to resolve via Func<T>; or stop using a singleton altogether and let that be a smaller lifetime scope.
For example, say you have some IDatabase service that needs an IPerformTransaction to get things done. The database connection is expensive to spin up, so you might make that a singleton. You might then have something like this:
public class DatabaseThing : IDatabase
{
public DatabaseThing(Func<IPerformTransaction> factory) { ... }
public void DoWork()
{
var transaction = this.factory();
transaction.DoSomethingWithData(this.Data);
}
}
So, like, the thing that's expensive to spin up uses a Func<T> to generate the cheap thing on the fly and work with it.
Inverting that relationship would look like this:
public PerformsTransaction : IPerformTransaction
{
public PerformsTransaction(IDatabase database) { ... }
public void DoSomethingWithData()
{
this.DoSomething(this.Database.Data);
}
}
The idea is that you'd resolve the transaction thing and it'd take the singleton in as a dependency. The cheaper item could easily be disposed along with child lifetime scopes (i.e., per request) but the singleton would remain.
It'd be better to redesign if you can because even with the other options you'll have a rough time getting "instance per request" sorts of things into a singleton. (And that's a bad idea anyway from both a captive dependency and threading standpoint.)
Option 2: Abandon Singleton
If you can't redesign, a good second choice would be to make the lifetime of the singleton... not be a singleton. Let it be instance-per-scope or instance-per-dependency and stop using Func<T>. Let everything get resolved from a child lifetime scope and be disposed when the scope is disposed.
I recognize that's not always possible for a variety of reasons. But if it is possible, that's another way to escape the problem.
Option 3: Use ExternallyOwned
If you can't redesign, you could register the disposable items consumed by the singleton as ExternallyOwned.
builder.RegisterType<ThingConsumedBySingleton>()
.As<IConsumedBySingleton>()
.ExternallyOwned();
Doing that will tell Autofac to not track the disposable. You won't have the memory leak. You will be responsible for disposing the resolved objects yourself. You will also still be getting them from the root lifetime scope since the singleton is getting a Func<T> injected.
public void MethodInsideSingleton()
{
using(var thing = this.ThingFactory())
{
// Do the work you need to and dispose of the
// resolved item yourself when done.
}
}
Option 4: Owned<T>
If you don't want to always manually dispose of the service you're consuming - you only want to deal with that inside the singleton - you could register it as normal but consume a Func<Owned<T>>. Then the singleton will resolve things as expected but the container won't track it for disposal.
public void MethodInsideSingleton()
{
using(var ownedThing = this.ThingFactory())
{
var thing = ownedThing.Value;
// Do the work you need to and dispose of the
// resolved item yourself when done.
}
}

autofac instance initialization notification

Is there a way to determine when Autofac has completed an initialization of an instance?
You may need it if you have Lazy dependencies, or you inject dependencies via properties.
Possible solution might look like this:
public class Component : IKeepMeInformed {
private readonly IOtherComponent otherComponent;
public class Component(Lazy<IOtherComponent> otherComponent) {
this.otherComponent = otherComponent;
}
void IKeepMeInformed.InitializationCompleted() {
// Do whatever you need with this.otherComponent.Value
}
}
Not directly tied to Lazy components, but Autofac exposes events that lets you hook into the lifetime of instances. Listening for the OnActivated event will enable you to do stuff immediately after an instance have been created. E.g.:
builder.RegisterType<OtherComponentImplementation>().As<IOtherComponent>()
.OnActivated(e => InitializationCompleted(e.Instance));
Update: actually, in the context of your Component class, you should "know" when the instance is initialized. It will be whenever you access the Lazy<>.Value property first.

Is there a disposing TransientLifetimeManager

I have a WPF view that has a corresponding ViewModel. All instances are resolved via an unity container. Because I'm using prism I need two independent instances of the view to add it into two different regions the view is registered to. If I'd try to add one instance into both regions I get an
InvalidOperationException: Specified
element is already the logical child
of another element. Disconnect it
first.
when the view is added into the second region because it is already added to the first region.
This problem can easily be solved by using a TransientLifetimeManager that always returns a new instance so both regions would be filled with an independent instance.
But we have decided to create a child container when a new user logs on. Every session related view and view model are resolved using this child container. When the user's session ends, the child container is disposed so that also every session related instances are disposed. But using a TransientLifetimeManager the unity container cannot dispose those instances.
What we need is a lifetime manager that always returns a new instance, but is also capable of disposing those instances. Is there already such an lifetime manager around? Or is there another way to achieve what I described above?
What you want sounds like a variant of the ContainerControlledLifetime manager that does not maintain a singleton instance, but a collection of instances. Unfortunately this is not one of the built-in lifetime managers.
You can look at the code for the ContainerControlledLifetimeManager and see that it is pretty simple. Your "SynchronizedGetValue" implementation would always return null (signaling to the container that a new instance needs to be instantiated). You could just subclass ContainerControlledLifetimeManager and override that method.
I've pretty much written it. I suppose I could give you the code. :)
public class ContainerTrackedTransientLifetimeManager :
ContainerControlledLifetimeManager
{
protected override object SynchronizedGetValue()
{
return null;
}
}
That should work. I've not tested it... from the interface, it looks like it's designed for a 1 to 1 LifetimeManager to Object relationship, but if it turns out it is more than that, you might have to override SetValue (adds to a collection of objects) and dispose (disposes that collection of objects). Here's that implementation:
public class ContainerTrackedTransientLifetimeManager :
SynchronizedLifetimeManager, IDisposable
{
private ConcurrentCollection<object> values = new ConcurrentCollection<object>();
protected override object SynchronizedGetValue()
{
return null;
}
protected override void SynchronizedSetValue(object newValue)
{
values.Add(newValue);
}
public override void RemoveValue()
{
Dispose();
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
var disposables = values.OfType<IDisposable>();
foreach(var disposable in disposables)
{
disposable.Dispose();
}
values.Clear();
}
I'm not sure which of these is the right answer. Let me know how it goes for you.
When you use transient lifetime manager (which is the default), Unity does not keep a reference to the created instance.
Thus, when there are no more reference to the instance, it will be GCed.