Disposing of object context when implementing a repository (DAL) and Mocking DAL for TDD - entity-framework

I am running into an issue where I can't figure out how to properly dispose of my object context I am creating every time I instantiate a new object.
public class OrderBLL{
var _iOrderLineDal;
public OrderBLL(){
_iOderLineDal = new OrderLineDal(new entityOBject(dbconnectionstring);
}
public OrderBLL(iOrderLineDal mockOrderLineDal){
_iOrderLineDal = mockOrderLineDal;
}
}
So the problem is, that every 30 seconds my service creates a new instance of the OrderBLL and then runs a method to see if there are any new orders in the Data base.
So every 30 seconds I create a new entityObject that is not being disposed of. the old implementation of the code was written using the using statement.
public bool HasNewOrders(){
using(var entityObject = new entityObject(dbconnectionString)){
var newOrders = entityObject.GetNewOrders();
}
//some logic
}
The problem with using this using statement is I cannot mock out the entityObject and easily write unit tests on any methods inside this OrderBLL class.
I tried disposing of it with a dispose method inside the OrderLineDal and once i got the data called dispose. That worked well the first iteration but the following iterations, the next 30 seconds, it would say that the entityObject was disposed of and cannot be used. (doesn't make sense to me, since I am creating a new one every time?)
Is there a way I can implement this repository pattern and still dispose of all the new entityObjects so I can mock the DAL out for unit testing?
I am working with EF 4. and it was not set up Code First, so I do not have POCO.

Ideally you would want to create your context outside of your OrderBLL (search google for Repository pattern).
public class OrderRepository : IOrderRepository, IDisposable
{
private readonly IOrderDBContext _dbContext;
// poor mans dependency injection
public OrderRepository() : this(new OrderDbContext("YourConnectionString")
{}
public OrderRepository(IOrderDBContext dbContext)
{
if (dbContext == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dbContext");
_dbContext = dbContext;
}
public bool GetNewOrders(){
return _dbContext.Orders.Where(o => o.IsNew==true);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_dbContext != null) _dbContext.dispose();
}
}
public class OrderBLL : IOrderBLL
{
private readonly IOrderRepository _repository;
public OrderRepository(IOrderRepository repository)
{
if (repository == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dbContext");
_repository = repository;
}
public bool HasNewOrders(){
var newOrders = _repository.GetNewOrders();
if (newOrders==null) return false;
return newOrders.Count() > 0;
}
}
[Test]
public void HasNewOrders_GivenNoNNewOrdersRetunedFromRepo_ReturnsFalse()
{
// test using nunit and nsubstitute
// Arrange
var repository = Substitue.For<IOrderRepository>();
var emptyOrderList = new List<Order>();
repository.GetNewOrders().Returns();
var orderBLL = new OrderBLL(repository);
// Act
var result = orderBLL.HasNewOrders();
// Assert
Assert.Equals(false, result);
}
Now you can inject your context into this class and easily test your business logic. Eventually you will need to create your dbContext and should also always expose this. I would suggest having a look at a DI container like Castle Windsor to manage the life of your objects, although in a service you may just want to manually create and dispose your context as close to the code entry point as possible (e.g. in the main method)

Related

Shim DbContext ctor for Effort unit testing

I'd like to intercept var context = new MyDbContext() to return a different constructor call instead.
The great thing about EFfort is that it let's you set up an easy in-memory database for unit testing.
var connection = Effort.DbConnectionFactory.CreateTransient();
var testContext = new MyDbContext(connection);
But then you'd have to inject that context into your repository.
public FooRepository(MyDbContext context) { _context = context; }
Is it possible to just intercept var context = new MyDbContext() , so that it returns the testContext?
using (var context = new MyDbContext()) {
// this way, my code isn't polluted with a ctor just for testing
}
You have two possible options. Using factories or via Aspect oriented programming (like PostSharp)
referencing this article: http://www.progware.org/Blog/post/Interception-and-Interceptors-in-C-(Aspect-oriented-programming).aspx
Using PostSharp (AOP)
PostSharp is a great tool and can achieve the most clean interception
possible (meaning no changes in your classes and object generation at
all even if you do not your factories for object creation and/or
interfaces) but it is not a free library. Rather than creating proxies
at runtime, it injects code at compile time and therefore changes your
initial program in a seamless way to add method interception.
.....
The cool thing in this is that you do not change anything else in your
code, so your object can be still generated using the new keyword.
Using DI and Factory-pattern
I personally prefer the factory-pattern approach, but you seem apposed to having to inject any dependencies into your classes.
public interface IDbContextFactory<T> where T : DbContext {
T Create();
}
public class TestDbContextFactory : IDbContextFactory<MyDbContext> {
public MyDbContext Create() {
var connection = Effort.DbConnectionFactory.CreateTransient();
var testContext = new MyDbContext(connection);
return testContext;
}
}
public class FooRepository {
MyDbContext _context;
public FooRepository(IDbContextFactory<MyDbContext> factory) {
_context = factory.Create();
}
}
(edit: I just realized this isn't actually returning the other ctor call. working on it.)
Figured it out. Simple enough if you know how to do it:
[TestMethod]
public void Should_have_a_name_like_this()
{
// Arrange
var connection = Effort.DbConnectionFactory.CreateTransient();
ShimSolrDbContext.Constructor = context => new SolrDbContext(connection);
// Act
// Assert
}
And as usual, EFfort requires this constructor in the DbContext class:
public class SomeDbContext
{
public SomeDbContext() : base("name=Prod")
{
}
// EFfort unit testing ctor
public SomeDbContext(DbConnection connection) : base(connection, contextOwnsConnection: true) {
Database.SetInitializer<SolrDbContext>(null);
}
}
But it means the repo is blissfully unaware of the special Transient connection:
public class SomeRepository
{
public void SomeMethodName()
{
using (var context = new SomeDbContext())
{
// self-contained in repository, no special params
// and still calls the special test constructor
}
}
}

How to structure unitofwork / service layer / repository, so that they work with DI (Unity) and Moq for Unit Testing

I have an MVC app (EF6, SQL Server CE 4), that I recently refactored to add a UnitOfWork class and a service layer (so that I could utilise a single DbContext per request, and conduct transactions successfully).
Previously, I was using Unity to inject the repositories into the controller. My unit tests (for the controllers) were simple to setup - I just mocked each repository, and passed those into the controller constructor.
After refactoring, I now use Unity to inject the Service Layer (to the controller) and UnitOfWork (into the Service Layer). The Service Layer now instantiates each repository, by passing the UnitOfWork.DbContext to the repository's constructor.
In my Unit Tests, I am attempting to mock the UnitOfWork, and the ServiceLayer (and pass the mocked UnitOfWork object into the ServiceLayer's constructor). However, the tests fail, saying "TestFixtureSetup failed in ControllerTest".
I assume it's due to how I'm attempting to pass the UnitOfWork mock into the ServiceLayer mock, so would appreciate any guidance on how to do this correctly.
Relevant code snippets below.
UnitOfWork
public interface IUnitOfWork:IDisposable
{
void Save();
IDSMContext Context { get; }
}
public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork, IDisposable
{
private IDSMContext _context;
public UnitOfWork()
{
_context = new IDSMContext();
}
public IDSMContext Context
{
get {return _context;}
}
public void Save()
{
_context.SaveChanges();
}
private bool disposed = false;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!this.disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
_context.Dispose();
}
}
this.disposed = true;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
Service Layer
public interface IService
{
// Repositories
IUserRepository Users { get; }
IUserTeamRepository UserTeams { get; }
IPlayerRepository Players { get; }
IGameRepository Games { get; }
IUserTeam_PlayerRepository UserTeamPlayers { get; }
void Save();
}
public class Service: IService, IDisposable
{
private IUnitOfWork _unitOfWork;
private IUserRepository _userRepository;
private IUserTeamRepository _userTeamRepository;
private IPlayerRepository _playerRepository;
private IGameRepository _gameRepository;
private IUserTeam_PlayerRepository _userTeamPlayerRepository;
public Service(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_unitOfWork = unitOfWork;
initialiseRepos();
}
private void initialiseRepos(){
_userRepository = _userRepository ?? new UserRepository(_unitOfWork.Context);
_userTeamRepository = _userTeamRepository ?? new UserTeamRepository(_unitOfWork.Context);
_playerRepository = _playerRepository ?? new PlayerRepository(_unitOfWork.Context);
_gameRepository = _gameRepository ?? new GameRepository(_unitOfWork.Context);
_userTeamPlayerRepository = _userTeamPlayerRepository ?? new UserTeam_PlayerRepository(_unitOfWork.Context);
}
public IUserRepository Users { get { return _userRepository; } }
public IUserTeamRepository UserTeams { get { return _userTeamRepository; } }
public IPlayerRepository Players { get { return _playerRepository; } }
public IGameRepository Games { get { return _gameRepository; } }
public IUserTeam_PlayerRepository UserTeamPlayers { get { return _userTeamPlayerRepository; } }
public void Save()
{
_unitOfWork.Save();
}
Unity Container Instance Setup
Instance.RegisterType<IService, Service>(new PerThreadLifetimeManager())
.RegisterType<IUnitOfWork, UnitOfWork>();
Controller Constructor
public GameController(IService service)
{
_service = service;
}
Test Constructor
_mockUnitOfWork = new Mock<IUnitOfWork>();
_mockServiceLayer = new Mock<IService>(_mockUnitOfWork.Object); //this line fails
Test Controller Method
GameController Controller = new GameController(_mockServiceLayer.Object);
If you want to test methods of GameController you just need to mock/stub the dependencies of that class. Just do this:
_mockServiceLayer = new Mock<IService>();
_controller = new GameController(_mockServiceLayer.Object);
When you are testing the Controller, you shouldn't worry about the dependencies of the service. UnitOfWork is never exposed outside your service, so don't worry about it when testing the controller. On your tests you may now setup expectations of methods called on your service, like verifying that Save was called once (If you were testing the service, then you would worry about the IService.Save calling Save on a mock of the IUnitOfWork!):
_mockServiceLayer.Verify(s=> s.Save(), Times.Once());
The problem you will find is that your service class is not abstracting the controller from the repositories, as your controller will get the repositories via the properties in IService and query directly the repositories. So if you want to test your controller methods, you will still need to mock the repositories, doing something like:
//Initialization before each test:
_mockUserRepo = new Mock<IUserRepository>();
//...other repositories
_mockServiceLayer = new Mock<IService>();
_mockServiceLayer.Setup(s => s.Users).Returns(_mockUserRepo.Object);
//... setup properties in IService for other repositories
_controller = new GameController(_mockServiceLayer.Object);
//In some test:
var user = new User();
_mockUserRepo.Setup(s => s.Get(123)).Returns(user);
call some controller method and make sure returned model is "user"
This way you may find yourself configuring the expectations and data returned by a few repositories and the UnityOfWork, just for testing the methods in the Controller! Not to mention that your Controller class effectively depends on your repositories, not just on the service.
Another approach would be if your service class contains higher level methods like GetUser, CreateUser or AddUserToTeam (likely having multiple services with closely related methods). The service would then shield the controller from retrieving/sending data to the repositories and using the UnitOfWork.
That way in your tests you would only need to mock IService.
For example a test for a typical "GET" action may look like:
//Arrange
var user = new User();
_mockServiceLayer.Setup(s => s.GetUser(123)).Returns(user);
//Act
var viewResult = _controller.GetUser(123) as ViewResult;
//Assert
Assert.AreEqual(user, viewResult.Model);
Hopefully this will help clarifying things a bit!
In the line that fails you are mocking the IService which does not have a constructor, so passing it args will cause it to fail. Since you are only trying to unit test the controller, you should change the line to this:
_mockServiceLayer = new Mock<IService>();
and then specify the the behaviors you want using _mockServiceLayer.Setup(...). Remember your interface doesn't know anything about your unit of work so you do not need to mock the unit of work.
If you actually want to test the controller and service layer together then you would do something like this:
_mockUnitOfWork = new Mock<IUnitOfWork>();
var serviceLayer = new Service(_mockUnitOfWork.Object);
var controller = new GameController(serviceLayer);
You would probably be better off unit testing the controllers and the serviceLayer separately, each time mocking the layer below.

Disposing entity framework dbcontext in singleton class (StructureMap)

In my application i am using StructureMap with EntityFramework.
Well, my ioc config looks like :
x.For<IDbContext>().Use(c => new DbContext(AppSettings.ConnectionString));
x.For<IManager>().Singleton().Use<DefaultManagerImplementation);
x.For<IManagerService>().Use<DefaultManagerServiceImplementation>();
My problem is about disposing DbContext instance, which one is use in IManagerService.
IManagerService :
using(var ctx = new DbContext(AppSettings.ConnectionString)
{
// works fine
ctx.
ctx.save();
}
public class ManagerService : IManagerService
{
private readonly IDbContext _dbContext;
public ManagerService(IDbcontext dbContext)
{
// not works, because DbContext is not disposed?
_dbContext = dbContext; // inject
...
_dbContext.Get... return old data
}
}
Well, is here any change to force dispose object which lives in singleton instance in structure map?
Thanks
You won't get any automatic disposing of this object because as far as your container is concerned, you're still using it. There are two options here:
Explicitly call .Dispose() on the DbContext when you're finished with it. You won't be able to use the DbContext anywhere else within your Singleton, since the object is now gone.
Instead of taking a dependency on DbContext, take a dependency on Func<DbContext> (or some other factory interface). I'm not sure about StructureMap, but other IoC containers handle Func automatically as long as you've registered T, so this shouldn't need any new dependencies. This would change your constructor to the following:
public class ManagerService : IManagerService
{
private readonly Func<IDbContext> _dbContextFactory;
public ManagerService(Func<IDbContext> dbContextFactory)
{
_dbContextFactory = dbContextFactory; // inject
using (var context = _dbContextFactory())
{
...
// Do stuff with your context here
} // It will be disposed of here
using (var context = _dbContextFactory())
{
// ...and here's another context for you
}
}
}

Service Class + Instantiating new classes

I wanted to know if this was thread safe/ good practice. My IOC is ninject, everything service layer call is via the default setting (In transient scope I think?).
Question, is instantiating new FileAllocation(loggedonuser,_repo) correct? The best way? What is the best way to do this? This is a domain class that holds logic that could be called from various services, there are usually a few database calls involved, most of the time no persistance is necessary...
Anyway, I call my service method via an interface e.g.
void SaveFile(int reportid, stream file); //Interface name: IReportFileService
public Class FileService: Servicebase, IReportFileService
{
private readonly IRepoSession _repo;
public FileService(IUserSession user, IRepoSession repo, IUpdateSession update)
: base(user,update)
{
_repo = repo;
}
//save file if users 'counter' is ok..
public void SaveFile(int reportid, stream file)
{
//here I want to instantiate a new class that I store in my domain and store the counters
//etc and do related db calls to check up relevant values
//note loggedonuser is a prop on my *base class*
var userChecks = new FileAllocation(loggedonuser,_repo);
userChecks.CountEmUp(); //exception is thrown if 0, less than "limit" etc...
base.update(userChecks.mycompany); //persist
base.commit(); //base class method includes try, catch block...
}
}
public class FileAllocation
{
private readonly IRepoSession _repo;
private readonly Loggedonuser _user;
private int CompanyUploads;
private int UserUploads;
public Company mycompany;
public FileAllocation(Loggedonuser user, IRepoSession repo)
{
_repo = repo;
_user = user;
}
public void CountEmUp()
{
//do error checking,
//load up other tables can user upload - permissions, count is ok etc...
// check the upload type if of certain type we cannot proceed - call another method on this class
//set myCompany variable to new limits etc...
}
}
Base Service includes a prop, I dont want to instantiate this from other services i.e. more that once, how do I avoid that?
private LoggedonuserDTO _currentuser = null;
protected LoggedonuserDTO loggedonuser
{
get
{
if (_currentuser == null)
{
_currentuser = _user.GetCurrentUser(); //make db call here...
}
return _currentuser;
}
}
#Darin suggested:
public interface IFileAllocation
{
CountEmUp(Loggedonuser currentuser);
}
//pass in loggedonuser to any method that requires it...
public class FileAllocation: IFileAllocation
{
CountEmUp(Loggedonuser currentuser)
{
//do whatever here...
}
}
var userChecks = new FileAllocation(loggedonuser,_repo);
introduces a strong coupling between the FileService and the FileAllocation classes. If this is not a problem for you then you can leave it that way. Otherwise you could abstract the operations of this FileAllocation class into an interface and then inject it into FileService. This way the FileService is weakly coupled with FileAllocation and could be reused in different contexts and unit tested in isolation.

How to dispose resources with dependency injection

I'm using StructureMap to resolve references to my repository class. My repository interface implements IDisposable, e.g.
public interface IMyRepository : IDisposable
{
SomeClass GetById(int id);
}
An implementation of the interface using Entity Framework:
public MyRepository : IMyRepository
{
private MyDbContext _dbContext;
public MyDbContext()
{
_dbContext = new MyDbContext();
}
public SomeClass GetById(int id)
{
var query = from x in _dbContext
where x.Id = id
select x;
return x.FirstOrDefault();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_dbContext.Dispose();
}
}
Anyway as mentioned I'm using StructureMap to resolve IMyRepository. So when, where and how should I call my dispose method?
WARNING: please note that my views have changed, and you should consider the following advise outdated. Please see this answer for an updated view: https://stackoverflow.com/a/30287923/264697
While DI frameworks can manage lifetime of objects for you and some could even dispose objects for you after you're done using with them, it makes object disposal just too implicit. The IDisposable interface is created because there was the need of deterministic clean-up of resources. Therefore, in the context of DI, I personally like to make this clean-up very explicit. When you make it explicit, you've got basically two options: 1. Configure the DI to return transient objects and dispose these objects yourself. 2. Configure a factory and instruct the factory to create new instances.
I favor the second approach over the first, because especially when doing Dependency Injection, your code isn't as clean as it could be. Look for instance at this code:
public sealed class Client : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDependency dependency;
public Client(IDependency dependency)
{
this. dependency = dependency;
}
public void Do()
{
this.dependency.DoSomething();
}
public Dispose()
{
this.dependency.Dispose();
}
}
While this code explicitly disposes the dependency, it could raise some eyebrows to readers, because resources should normally only be disposed by the owner of the resource. Apparently, the Client became the owner of the resource, when it was injected.
Because of this, I favor the use of a factory. Look for instance at this example:
public sealed class Client
{
private readonly IDependencyFactory factory;
public Client(IDependencyFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Do()
{
using (var dependency = this.factory.CreateNew())
{
dependency.DoSomething();
}
}
}
This example has the exact same behavior as the previous example, but see how the Client class doesn't have to implement IDisposable anymore, because it creates and disposes the resource within the Do method.
Injecting a factory is the most explicit way (the path of least surprise) to do this. That's why I prefer this style. Downside of this is that you often need to define more classes (for your factories), but I personally don't mind.
RPM1984 asked for a more concrete example.
I would not have the repository implement IDisposable, but have a Unit of Work that implements IDisposable, controls/contains repositories and have a factory that knows how to create new unit of works. With that in mind, the above code would look like this:
public sealed class Client
{
private readonly INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory factory;
public Client(INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void Do()
{
using (NorthwindUnitOfWork db =
this.factory.CreateNew())
{
// 'Customers' is a repository.
var customer = db.Customers.GetById(1);
customer.Name = ".NET Junkie";
db.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
In the design I use, and have described here, I use a concrete NorthwindUnitOfWork class that wraps an IDataMapper that is the gateway to the underlying LINQ provider (such as LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework). In sumary, the design is as follows:
An INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory is injected in a client.
The particular implementation of that factory creates a concrete NorthwindUnitOfWork class and injects a O/RM specific IDataMapper class into it.
The NorthwindUnitOfWork is in fact a type-safe wrapper around the IDataMapper and the NorthwindUnitOfWork requests the IDataMapper for repositories and forwards requests to submit changes and dispose to the mapper.
The IDataMapper returns Repository<T> classes and a repository implements IQueryable<T> to allow the client to use LINQ over the repository.
The specific implementation of the IDataMapper holds a reference to the O/RM specific unit of work (for instance EF's ObjectContext). For that reason the IDataMapper must implement IDisposable.
This results in the following design:
public interface INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
{
NorthwindUnitOfWork CreateNew();
}
public interface IDataMapper : IDisposable
{
Repository<T> GetRepository<T>() where T : class;
void Save();
}
public abstract class Repository<T> : IQueryable<T>
where T : class
{
private readonly IQueryable<T> query;
protected Repository(IQueryable<T> query)
{
this.query = query;
}
public abstract void InsertOnSubmit(T entity);
public abstract void DeleteOnSubmit(T entity);
// IQueryable<T> members omitted.
}
The NorthwindUnitOfWork is a concrete class that contains properties to specific repositories, such as Customers, Orders, etc:
public sealed class NorthwindUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
private readonly IDataMapper mapper;
public NorthwindUnitOfWork(IDataMapper mapper)
{
this.mapper = mapper;
}
// Repository properties here:
public Repository<Customer> Customers
{
get { return this.mapper.GetRepository<Customer>(); }
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.mapper.Dispose();
}
}
What's left is an concrete implementation of the INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory and a concrete implementation of the IDataMapper. Here's one for Entity Framework:
public class EntityFrameworkNorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
: INorthwindUnitOfWorkFactory
{
public NorthwindUnitOfWork CreateNew()
{
var db = new ObjectContext("name=NorthwindEntities");
db.DefaultContainerName = "NorthwindEntities";
var mapper = new EntityFrameworkDataMapper(db);
return new NorthwindUnitOfWork(mapper);
}
}
And the EntityFrameworkDataMapper:
public sealed class EntityFrameworkDataMapper : IDataMapper
{
private readonly ObjectContext context;
public EntityFrameworkDataMapper(ObjectContext context)
{
this.context = context;
}
public void Save()
{
this.context.SaveChanges();
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.context.Dispose();
}
public Repository<T> GetRepository<T>() where T : class
{
string setName = this.GetEntitySetName<T>();
var query = this.context.CreateQuery<T>(setName);
return new EntityRepository<T>(query, setName);
}
private string GetEntitySetName<T>()
{
EntityContainer container =
this.context.MetadataWorkspace.GetEntityContainer(
this.context.DefaultContainerName, DataSpace.CSpace);
return (
from item in container.BaseEntitySets
where item.ElementType.Name == typeof(T).Name
select item.Name).First();
}
private sealed class EntityRepository<T>
: Repository<T> where T : class
{
private readonly ObjectQuery<T> query;
private readonly string entitySetName;
public EntityRepository(ObjectQuery<T> query,
string entitySetName) : base(query)
{
this.query = query;
this.entitySetName = entitySetName;
}
public override void InsertOnSubmit(T entity)
{
this.query.Context.AddObject(entitySetName, entity);
}
public override void DeleteOnSubmit(T entity)
{
this.query.Context.DeleteObject(entity);
}
}
}
You can find more information about this model here.
UPDATE December 2012
This an an update written two years after my original answer. The last two years much has changed in the way I try to design the systems I'm working on. Although it has suited me in the past, I don't like to use the factory approach anymore when dealing with the Unit of Work pattern. Instead I simply inject a Unit of Work instance into consumers directly. Whether this design is feasibly for you however, depends a lot on the way your system is designed. If you want to read more about this, please take a look at this newer Stackoverflow answer of mine: One DbContext per web request…why?
If you want to get it right, i'd advise on a couple of changes:
1 - Don't have private instances of the data context in the repository. If your working with multiple repositories then you'll end up with multiple contexts.
2 - To solve the above - wrap the context in a Unit of Work. Pass the unit of work to the Repositories via the ctor: public MyRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
3 - Make the Unit of Work implement IDisposable. The Unit of Work should be "newed up" when a request begins, and therefore should be disposed when the request finishes. The Repository should not implement IDisposable, as it is not directly working with resources - it is simply mitigating them. The DataContext / Unit of Work should implement IDispoable.
4 - Assuming you are using a web application, you do not need to explicitly call dispose - i repeat, you do not need to explicitly call your dispose method. StructureMap has a method called HttpContextBuildPolicy.DisposeAndClearAll();. What this does is invoke the "Dispose" method on any HTTP-scoped objects that implement IDisposable. Stick this call in Application_EndRequest (Global.asax). Also - i believe there is an updated method, called ReleaseAllHttpScopedObjects or something - can't remember the name.
Instead of adding Dispose to IMyRepository, you could declare IMyRepository like this:
public interface IMyRepository: IDisposable
{
SomeClass GetById(int id);
}
This way, you ensure all repository will call Dispose sometimes, and you can use the C# "using" pattern on a Repository object:
using (IMyRepository rep = GetMyRepository(...))
{
... do some work with rep
}