If I create a "Plugin Project" in Eclipse, it creates a default BundleActivator implementation that just sets the BundleContext in an unsynchronized static field.
Since it also creates a public static getter, this doesn't look Thread-safe, because even if OSGi performs some synchronization when calling the Activator, how do I know that any of my code which would call the getter would also run inside the same synchronization block?
In a "normal" context, both the getters and setters need to be synchronized, or we must use a volatile, to be sure that whatever Thread calls the getter later actually sees the current state of the static field.
If the field was set only once, it would not be a problem, but I understand that bundles can be started and stopped several times during the lifetime of the JVM, and under those conditions, it would be thinkable that a Thread has already a cached version of the field, and would not see a change, due to the lack of synchronization.
I can't imagine that Eclipse would generate plain wrong code by default, but I can't see how this would work either.
I agree that the generated code is incorrect and it doesn't surprise me at all that Eclipse PDE would generated incorrect code. There is no need for this static field, and in fact in most cases the activator itself is useless.
Related
I am developing a modular WPF application with Prism in .Net Core 5.0 (using MVVM, DryIoc) and I would like to have a module that is not a WPF module, i.e., a module with functionality that can be used by any other module. I don't want any project reference, because I want to keep the loosely coupled idea of the modules.
My first question is: is it conceptually correct? Or is it mandatory that a module has a screen? I guess it should be ok.
The second and more important (for me) is, what would be the best way to create the instance?
This is the project (I know I should review the names in this project):
HotfixSearcher is the main class, the one I need to get instantiated. In this class, for example, I subscribe to some events.
And this is the class that implements the IModule interface (the module class):
namespace SearchHotfix.Library
{
public class HotfixSearcherModule : IModule
{
public HotfixSearcherModule()
{
}
public void OnInitialized(IContainerProvider containerProvider)
{
//Create Searcher instance
var searcher = containerProvider.Resolve<IHotfixSearcher>();
}
public void RegisterTypes(IContainerRegistry containerRegistry)
{
containerRegistry.RegisterSingleton<IHotfixSearcher, HotfixSearcher>();
}
}
}
That is the only way I found to get the class instantiated, but I am not a hundred per cent comfortable with creating an instance that is not used, I think it does not make much sense.
For modules that have screens, the instances get created when navigating to them using the RequestNavigate method:
_regionManager.RequestNavigate(RegionNames.ContentRegion, "ContentView");
But since this is only a library with no screens, I can't find any other way to get this instantiated.
According to Prism documentation, subscribing to an event shoud be enough but I tried doing that from within my main class HotfixSearcher but it does not work (breakpoints on constructor or on the event handler of the event to which I subscribe are never hit).
When I do this way, instead, the instance is created, I hit the constructor breakpoint, and obviously the instance is subscribed to the event since it is done in the constructor.
To sum up, is there a way to get rid of that var searcher = containerProvider.Resolve<IHotfixSearcher>(); and a better way to achieve this?
Thanks in advance!
Or is it mandatory that a module has a screen?
No, of course not, modules have nothing to do with views or view models. They are just a set of registrations with the container.
what would be the best way to create the instance?
Let the container do the work. Normally, you have (at least) one assembly that only contains public interfaces (and the associated enums), but no modules. You reference that from the module and register the module's implementations of the relevant interfaces withing the module's Initialize method. Some other module (or the main app) can then have classes that get the interfaces as constructor parameters, and the container will resolve (i.e. create) the concrete types registered in the module, although they are internal or even private and completely unknown outside the module.
This is as loose a coupling as it gets if you don't want to sacrifice strong typing.
is there a way to get rid of that var searcher = containerProvider.Resolve<IHotfixSearcher>(); and a better way to achieve this?
You can skip the var searcher = part :-) But if the HotfixSearcher is never injected anywhere, it won't be created unless you do it yourself. OnInitialized is the perfect spot for this, because it runs after all modules had their chance to RegisterTypes so all dependencies should be registered.
If HotfixSearcher is not meant to be injected, you can also drop IHotfixSearcher and resolve HotfixSearcher directly:
public void OnInitialized(IContainerProvider containerProvider)
{
containerProvider.Resolve<HotfixSearcher>();
}
I am not a hundred per cent comfortable with creating an instance that is not used, I think it does not make much sense.
It is used, I suppose, although not through calling one of its methods. It's used by sending it an event. That's just fine. Think of it like Task.Run - it's fine for the task to exist in seeming isolation, too.
I have a console app that will create an instance of a class and execute a method on it, and that's really all it does (but this method may do a lot of things). The class is determined at runtime based on command line args, and this is registered to Autofac so it can be correctly resolved, supplying class-specific constructor parameters extracted from the command line. All this works.
Now, I need to impose a system-wide limit to the number of instances per class that can be running at any one time. I will probably use a simple SQL database to keep track of number of allowed and running instances per class, and I have no problem with the SQL side of things.
But how do I actually impose this limit in a nice manner using Autofac?
I am thinking that I would have some "slot service" that would do something like this:
Try to reserve a new instance "slot".
If no more slots, log a message and terminate the process.
If slot successfully reserved, create instance and return it.
My idea is also to free the instance's slot in the class' Dispose method, preferably by using another method on the slot service.
How would I fit this into Autofac?
One possibility would be to register the class I want to instantiate with a lambda/delegate that does the above steps. But in that case, how do I "terminate"? Throw an exception? That would require some code to catch the exception and either log it or simply ignore it before terminating the process. I don't like it. I'd like the entire slot reservation stuff inside the delegate, lambda or service.
Another solution might be to do the slot reservation outside of Autofac, but that also seems somewhat messy.
I would prefer a solution where the "slot service" itself can be nicely unit tested, i.e. non-static and with an interface, and preferably resolved with Autofac.
I'm sure I'm missing something obvious here... Any suggestions?
This is my "best bet" so far:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ReadCommandLine(args, out Type itemClass, out Type paramsClass, out Type paramsInterface, out object parameters);
BuildContainer(itemClass, paramsClass, paramsInterface, parameters);
IInstanceHandler ih = Container.Resolve<IInstanceHandler>();
if (ih.RegisterInstance(itemClass, out long instanceid))
{
try
{
Container.Resolve<IItem>().Execute();
}
finally
{
ih.UnregisterInstance(itemClass, instanceid);
}
}
}
I've got a base class I'm using with MSpec which provides convenience methods around AutoMock:
public abstract class SubjectBuilderContext
{
static AutoMock _container;
protected static ISubjectBuilderConfigurationContext<T> BuildSubject<T>()
{
_container = AutoMock.GetLoose();
return new SubjectBuilderConfigurationContext<T>(_container);
}
protected static Mock<TDouble> GetMock<TDouble>()
where TDouble : class
{
return _container.Mock<TDouble>();
}
}
Occasionally, I'm seeing an exception happen when attempting to retrieve a Mock like so:
It should_store_the_receipt = () => GetMock<IFileService>().Verify(f => f.SaveFileAsync(Moq.It.IsAny<byte[]>(), Moq.It.IsAny<string>()), Times.Once());
Here's the exception:
System.ObjectDisposedExceptionInstances cannot be resolved and nested
lifetimes cannot be created from this LifetimeScope as it has already
been disposed.
I'm guessing it has something to do with the way MSpec runs the tests (via reflection) and that there's a period of time when nothing actively has references to any of the objects in the underlying lifetime scope being used by AutoMock which causes the lifetimescope to get disposed. What's going on here, and is there some simple way for me to keep it from happening?
The AutoMock lifetime scope from Autofac.Extras.Moq is disposed when the mock itself is disposed. If you're getting this, it means the AutoMock instance has been disposed or has otherwise lost scope and the GC has cleaned it up.
Given that, there are a few possibilities.
The first possibility is that you've got some potential threading challenges around async method calls. Looking at the method that's being mocked, I see you're verifying the call to a SaveFileAsync method. However, I don't see any async related code in there, and I'm not entirely sure when/how the tests running are calling it given the currently posted code, but if there is a situation where an async call causes the test to run on one thread while the AutoMock loses scope or otherwise gets killed on the other thread, I could see this happening.
The second possibility is the mix of static and instance items in the context. You are storing the AutoMock as a static, but it appears the context class in which it resides is a base class that is intended to supply instance-related values. If two tests run in parallel, for example, the first test will set the AutoMock to what it thinks it needs, then the second test will overwrite the AutoMock and the first will go out of scope, disposing the scope.
The third possibility is multiple calls to BuildSubject<T> in one test. The call to BuildSubject<T> initializes the AutoMock. If you call that multiple times in one test, despite changing the T type, you'll be stomping the AutoMock each time and the associated lifetime scope will be disposed.
The fourth possibility is a test ordering problem. If you only see it sometimes but not other times, it could be that certain tests inadvertently assume that some setup, like the call to BuildSubject<T>, has already been done; while other tests may not make that assumption and will call BuildSubject<T> themselves. Depending on the order the tests run, you may sometimes get lucky and not see the exception, but other times you may run into the problem where BuildSubject<T> gets called at just the wrong time and causes you pain.
I just started using the Netbeans 7.1 beta and it is calling out errors of a type which I have never seen before. Specifically:
A managed bean with a public field should not declare any scope other than #Dependent.
The fields it is complaining about are public static final. I can understand the restriction on non-static fields, but I can't think of a good reason this would not be allowed for a static field. Unfortunately I use a lot of them since I don't like having constants in my code.
I note that even though I get the red dot in the margin in the editor, the maven-driven build still works and GlassFish still runs my application the way I would expect.
So what is my denoument on this issue? Am I going to have to move my static fields elsewhere or is there another way of handling this?
Quoting the javax.enterprise.inject package javadocs:
If a managed bean has a public field, it must have scope #Dependent.
But I do agree wih #BalusC that if this compiles, Netbeans should report it as Warning (does it?).
Anyway, are those constants really part of the API? I mean, do you access they anywhere else but within their own classes? If not, reduce visibility to private. (If you just need to access the constants from the view you can also create accessors for the private constant). If yes, I would suggest you to move them somewhere else anyway.
Public fields (static or not) aren't proxyable - that's why they can only be dependent scoped. To work around this you obviously can access them through getter methods.
I'm testing some code that uses StructureMap for Inversion of Control and problems have come up when I use different concrete classes for the same interface.
For example:
[Test]
public void Test1()
{
ObjectFactory.Inject<IFoo>(new TestFoo());
...
}
[Test]
public void Test2()
{
ObjectFactory.Initialize(
x => x.ForRequestedType<IFoo>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<RealFoo>()
);
// ObjectFactory.Inject<IFoo>(new RealFoo()) doesn't work either.
...
}
Test2 works fine if it runs by itself, using a RealFoo. But if Test1 runs first, Test2 ends up using a TestFoo instead of RealFoo. Aren't NUnit tests supposed to be isolated? How can I reset StructureMap?
Oddly enough, Test2 fails if I don't include the Initialize expression. But if I do include it, it gets ignored...
If you must use ObjectFactory in your tests, in your SetUp or TearDown, make a call to ObjectFactory.ResetAll().
Even better, try to migrate your code away from depending on ObjectFactory. Any class that needs to pull stuff out of the container (other than the startup method) can take in an IContainer, which will automatically be populated by StructureMap (assuming the class itself is retrieved from the container). You can reference the IContainer wrapped by ObjectFactory through its Container property. You can also avoid using ObjectFactory completely and just create an instance of a Container that you manage yourself (it can be configured in the same way as ObjectFactory).
Yes, NUnit tests are supposed to be isolated and it is your responsibility to make sure they are isolated. The solution would be to reset ObjectFactory in the TearDown method of your test fixture. You can use ObjectFactory.EjectAllInstancesOf() for example.
Of course it doesn't reset between tests. ObjectFactory is a static wrapper around an InstanceManager; it is static through an AppDomain and as tests run in the same AppDomain this is why it is not reset. You need to TearDown the ObjectFactory between tests or configure a new Container for each test (i.e., get away from using the static ObjectFactory).
Incidentally, this is the main reason for avoiding global state and singletons: they are not friendly to testing.
From the Google guide to Writing Testable Code:
Global State: Global state is bad from theoretical, maintainability, and understandability point of view, but is tolerable at run-time as long as you have one instance of your application. However, each test is a small instantiation of your application in contrast to one instance of application in production. The global state persists from one test to the next and creates mass confusion. Tests run in isolation but not together. Worse yet, tests fail together but problems can not be reproduced in isolation. Order of the tests matters. The APIs are not clear about the order of initialization and object instantiation, and so on. I hope that by now most developers agree that global state should be treated like GOTO.