Dependecy injection of arguments known at runtime? - asp.net-mvc-2

I've been using IoC container's for quite some time but today I've found some "pattern" appearing in code over and over again. To give you some background I am now working on web application basically used for data analysis. There is a set of features there, that requires user to pick up what we call QueryTypeContex at the very beginning. Once this query type is chosen other steps may be taken but that all are performed in this specific QueryTypeContex. In the gui the QueryTypeContex pick up is represented as opening new tab with other controls.
When user is working with given QueryTypeContex all ajax calls to the server include QueryTypeId that identifies users choice and is used to build QueryTypeContex on the server which then is used for various data retrieval and manipulation.
What I've found is that many of our controllers (we use asp.net mvc) that are constructed with Ioc container have one thing in common. There is an action method that looks somewhat like this:
public class AttributeController : Controller
{
public AttributeController(IUsefulService usefulService)
{
_usefulservice = usefulService;
}
ActionResult GetAttributes(QueryTypeContex context)
{
var dataDto = _usefulService.Manipulate(context, currentUser);
return JSon(dataDto);
}
...
}
In order to bind QueryTypeContex to action argument we use custom model binder that pulls some information from database. Once the service gets QueryTypeContex as argument it passes it or its properties down to its collaborators in method arguments for instance data access layer. And so there is a factory class that looks like this
public interface IDateValueFactory
{
DateValue CurrentYear(QueryTypeContex context);
DateValue RollingMonth(int numberOfMonths, QueryTypeContex context);
DateValue RollingQuareter(int numberOfQuarters, QueryTypeContex context);
}
public class DateValueFactory : IDateValueFactory
{
public DateValueFactory(IDateValueDb dateValueDb)
{
_dateValueDb = dateValueDb;
}
public DateValue CurrentYear(QueryTypeContext context)
{
var currentYear = _dateValueDb.GetCurrentYear(context.Id);
return new DateValue(DateValueType.CurrentYear, currentYear, context);
}
public DateValue RollingMonth(int numberOfMonths, QueryTypeContex context)
{
return new DateValue(DateValueType.RollingMonth, numberOfMonths, context);
}
...
}
As you see all of these methods get QueryTypeContex as a parameter more importantly they all get the very same instance of QueryTypeContex during their short life (one web request). So I started to wonder if I could refactor this so that whenever many service class methods require QueryTypeContex as arguments it would be injected via constructor instead of passing the same value over an over again. For example:
public interface IDateValueFactory
{
DateValue CurrentYear();
DateValue RollingMonth(int numberOfMonths);
DateValue RollingQuareter(int numberOfQuarters);
}
public class DateValueFactory : IDateValueFactory
{
public DateValueFactory(IDateValueDb dateValueDb, QueryTypeContext context)
{
_dateValueDb = dateValueDb;
_context = context;
}
public DateValue CurrentYear()
{
var currentYear = _dateValueDb.GetCurrentYear(_context.Id);
return new DateValue(DateValueType.CurrentYear, currentYear, _context);
}
public DateValue RollingMonth(int numberOfMonths)
{
return new DateValue(DateValueType.RollingMonth, numberOfMonths, _context);
}
...
}
And now the real question:
Is this a good idea to to this sort of thing or it violates some design principles i should adhere to ?
In order to inject QueryTypeContex instance, builded using information from http request I thought about embedding the QueryTypeId in the uris so it would be available in the RouteData on the server. Then before the controller is constructed I could pull it out, build the QueryTypeContex, create nested IoC container for that request and inject it into the container. Then whenever some class would need QueryTypeContex to perform its job it would simply declare it as constructor argument.

Anything you can meaningfully push to the constructor as dependencies, you should. Dependencies wired up with constructor injection are implementation details, whereas method parameters are part of your model's API.
It's much easier to refactor dependencies wired through constructors than to change an API, so for maintainability reasons you should prefer as few method parameters as possible.

Related

How Do I Create a DbContextFactory Within a Blazor Background Service?

I am working on my first Blazor Server application, which is also my first Entity Framework Core application. I am wanting to set up a background service which, once a day in the early morning, checks the database to see if any of a certain record type has been added with yesterday's date. If so, the relevant records are pulled, formatted, and then emailed to a stakeholder.
I have the EF, formatting, and emailing code working just fine when I trigger the report by manually visiting the page. The problem that I have is how to provide the background service with a DbContextFactory so that the EF and related code can execute.
Up to this point I've always used Razor-based dependency injection to inject the IDbContextFactory via an inject IDbContextFactory<OurAppContext> DbFactory at the top of the page, and then accessed the DbFactory via the DbFactory variable.
However, background services are (according to this Microsoft tutorial) set up through Program.cs, so I don't have access to Razor-based dependency injection there.
I have set up my background service (what I call the PhaseChangeReportService) as indicated in the above link, and it dutifully outputs to the console every 10 seconds that it is running with an updated execution count. I don't fully understand what's going on with the various layers of indirection, but it appears to be working as Microsoft intended.
I noted that the constructor for the background service takes in an ILogger as a parameter, specifically:
namespace miniDARTS.ScopedService
{
public sealed class PhaseChangeReportService : IScopedProcessingService
{
private int _executionCount;
private readonly ILogger<PhaseChangeReportService> _logger;
public PhaseChangeReportService(ILogger<PhaseChangeReportService> logger)
{
_logger = logger;
}
public async Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
while (!stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
++_executionCount;
_logger.LogInformation("{ServiceName} working, execution count: {Count}", nameof(PhaseChangeReportService), _executionCount);
await Task.Delay(10_000, stoppingToken);
}
}
}
}
I was (and am) confused that the constructor is never referenced within Visual Studio, but when I drop a breakpoint on its one line of code it is hit. I tried modifying this constructor's signature so that it took in an IDbFactory<OurAppContext> as well, so that whatever dark magic is allowing an ILogger<BackgroundServiceType> to come in for assignment to _logger might bring in a DbFactory<OurAppContext> as well, like so:
private readonly ILogger<PhaseChangeReportService> _logger;
private readonly IDbContextFactory<miniDARTSContext> _dbContextFactory;
public PhaseChangeReportService(ILogger<PhaseChangeReportService> logger, IDbContextFactory<miniDARTSContext> dbContextFactory)
{
_logger = logger;
_dbContextFactory = dbContextFactory;
}
However, doing so just led to the constructor breakpoint being skipped over and not breaking, with no exception being thrown or any console output of any kind (i.e. the prior execution count console output no longer showed up). So, I gave up on that approach.
Here is the relevant section of Program.cs:
// Configure the database connection.
string connectionString = builder.Configuration.GetConnectionString("miniDARTSContext");
var serverVersion = new MySqlServerVersion(new Version(8, 0, 28));
builder.Services.AddDbContextFactory<miniDARTSContext>(options => options.UseMySql(connectionString, serverVersion), ServiceLifetime.Scoped);
IHost host = Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args)
.ConfigureServices(services =>
{
services.AddHostedService<ScopedBackgroundService>();
services.AddScoped<IScopedProcessingService, PhaseChangeReportService>();
})
.Build();
host.RunAsync();
Here's IScopedProcessingService.cs:
namespace miniDARTS.ScopedService
{
public interface IScopedProcessingService
{
Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken);
}
}
And here's ScopedBackgroundService.cs:
namespace miniDARTS.ScopedService;
public sealed class ScopedBackgroundService : BackgroundService
{
private readonly IServiceProvider _serviceProvider;
private readonly ILogger<ScopedBackgroundService> _logger;
public ScopedBackgroundService(IServiceProvider serviceProvider, ILogger<ScopedBackgroundService> logger)
{
_serviceProvider = serviceProvider;
_logger = logger;
}
protected override async Task ExecuteAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
_logger.LogInformation($"{nameof(ScopedBackgroundService)} is running.");
await DoWorkAsync(stoppingToken);
}
private async Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
_logger.LogInformation($"{nameof(ScopedBackgroundService)} is working.");
using (IServiceScope scope = _serviceProvider.CreateScope())
{
IScopedProcessingService scopedProcessingService = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IScopedProcessingService>();
await scopedProcessingService.DoWorkAsync(stoppingToken);
}
}
public override async Task StopAsync(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
_logger.LogInformation($"{nameof(ScopedBackgroundService)} is stopping.");
await base.StopAsync(stoppingToken);
}
}
I'm confident I'm misunderstanding something relatively fundamental here when it comes to services / dependency injection, but my Googling and review of past StackOverflow answers has not turned up anything I can run with.
The IDbContextFactory is an interface that is used for creating instances of a DbContext. When you add it to your services on program.cs for Blazor (services.AddDbContextFactory(parameters)), it implements the IDbContextFactory for you. This allows you to use the #inject IDbContextFactory<YourDbContext> DbFactory at the top of your razor components and then within your code you can call the CreateDbContext method when you need to create an instance of the DbContext (ex. using var context = DbFactory.CreateDbContext()).
You can pass an injected DbContextFactory as a parameter from a razor component to a class, and then use that DbContextFactory in a method to create an instance of the DbContext (see constructor injection), but that still relies on the razor component to inject the DbContextFactory to begin with.
To create an instance of a DbContext independent of a razor component, you need to use the constructor for your DbContext. Your DbContext will have a public constructor with a DbContextOptions parameter (this is required to be able to use AddDbContextFactory when registering the factory service in program.cs). You can use this constructor to implement your own factory. If you aren't sure which options to use, you can check your program.cs to see what options you used there.
public class YourDbFactory : IDbContextFactory<YourDbContext>
{
public YourDbContext CreateDbContext()
{
var optionsBuilder = new DbContextOptionsBuilder<YourDbContext>();
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer(#"Server=(localdb)\mssqllocaldb;Database=Test"));
return new YourDbContext(optionsBuilder);
}
}
Once you've created your own implementation of the IDbContextFactory interface, you can then use it in your code independent of razor components - for example in the background service class.
YourDbFactory DbFactory = new YourDbFactory();
using var context = DbFactory.CreateDbContext();

EF Core load references of unknown entity

DISCLAIMER: Since we are all familiar with it, i will be using contoso university design to explain my question. Also, i am using EF core and .net core 2.0 on a mvc code first design.
I am developing a very generic RESTful API that works on any model. It has one method for each of create, read, update and delete operation in only one controller, the route of this is
[Route("/api/{resource}")]
Resource is the entity that the client wants to work with, for example if someone wants to get all Courses using the api he has to do a GET request on http://www.example.com/api/course/ or http://www.example.com/api/course/2 to get one by id and the following code will do the job.
[HttpGet("{id:int:min(1)?}")]
public IActionResult Read([FromRoute] string resource, [FromRoute] int? id)
{
//find resourse in models
IEntityType entityType = _context.Model
.GetEntityTypes()
.FirstOrDefault(x => x.Name.EndsWith($".{resource}", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));
if (entityType == null) return NotFound(resource);
Type type = entityType.ClrType;
if (id == null)//select all from table
{
var entityRows = context.GetType().GetMethod("Set").MakeGenericMethod(type).Invoke(context, null);
if (entityRows == null)
return NoContent();
//TODO: load references (1)
return Ok(entityRows);
}
else //select by id
{
var entityRow = _context.Find(type, id);
if (entityRow == null)
return NoContent();
//TODO: load references (2)
return Ok(entityRows);
}
}
This small piece of code will do the magic with one small exception, intermediate collections will not be loaded. Given our example, the fetched course or courses will have no info for CourseInstructor (the intermediate collection in between Course and Person). I am trying to find a way to Eager load the navigation properties only if it is a collection; or by any other condition that will ensure that only many-to-many relationships are loaded.
For //TODO: load reference (2) i could use
_context.Entry(entityRow).Collection("CourseInsructor").Load();
On runtime if i could find all the navigation properties (filtered by spoken condition) and foreach of them i did Load(), i should get the desired result. My problem is when i get all (when id is null) the entityRows is type 'InternalDbSet' which is an unknown model.
So for the two TODOs i need some help on doing the following steps
1: find navigation properties of many-to-many relationships only
2: load them
Any suggestions?
In general, this seems like a very bad idea to me. While the CRUD stuff is going to be identical for most resources, there will be variances (as you've now run into). There's also something to be said for having a self-documenting API: with individual controllers, you know which resources can be accessed by nature of having a controller associated with that resource. With they way you're doing it, it's a complete black box. This also will of course effect any sort of actual generated API documentation. For example, if you were to include Swagger in your project, it would not be able to determine what you're doing here. Finally, you're now having to use reflection for everything, which will effect your performance.
What I would suggest instead is creating a base abstract controller and then creating a controller for each unique resource that inherits from that, for example:
public abstract class BaseController<TEntity> : Controller
where TEntity : class, new()
{
protected readonly MyContext _context;
public BaseController(MyContext context)
{
_context = context ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(context));
}
...
[HttpGet("create")]
public IActionResult Create()
{
var model = new TEntity();
return View(model);
}
[HttpPost("create")]
public async Task<IActionResult> Create(TEntity model)
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
_context.Add(model);
await _context.SaveChangesAsync();
return RedirectToAction("Index");
}
return View(model);
}
...
}
I just wanted to give a quick example, but you'd build out all the rest of the CRUD methods in the same fashion, generically using TEntity. Then, for each actual resource, you simply do:
public class WidgetController : BaseController<Widget>
{
public WidgetController(MyContext context)
: base(context)
{
}
}
No duplication of code, but you've now got an actual real controller backing the resource, aiding both the innate and possibly explicit documentation of your API. And, no reflection anywhere.
Then, to solve problems like what you have here, you can add hooks to your base controller: essentially just virtual methods that are utilized in your base controller's CRUD actions and do nothing or just default things. However, you can then override these in your derived controllers to stub in additional functionality. For example, you can add something like:
public virtual IQueryable<TEntity> GetQueryable()
=> _context.Set<TEntity>();
Then, in your derived controller, you can do something like:
public class CourseController : BaseController<Course>
{
...
public override IQueryable<Course> GetQueryable()
=> base.GetQueryable().Include(x => x.CourseInstructors).ThenInclude(x => x.Instructor);
So, for example, you'd make your BaseController.Index action, perhaps, utilize GetQueryable() to get the list of entities to display. Simply by overriding this on the derived class, you can alter what happens based on the context of a particular type of resource.

Decouple EF queries from BL - Extension Methods VS Class-Per-Query

I have read dozens of posts about PROs and CONs of trying to mock \ fake EF in the business logic.
I have not yet decided what to do - but one thing I know is - I have to separate the queries from the business logic.
In this post I saw that Ladislav has answered that there are 2 good ways:
Let them be where they are and use custom extension methods, query views, mapped database views or custom defining queries to define reusable parts.
Expose every single query as method on some separate class. The method
mustn't expose IQueryable and mustn't accept Expression as parameter =
whole query logic must be wrapped in the method. But this will make
your class covering related methods much like repository (the only one
which can be mocked or faked). This implementation is close to
implementation used with stored procedures.
Which method do you think is better any why ?
Are there ANY downsides to put the queries in their own place ? (maybe losing some functionality from EF or something like that)
Do I have to encapsulate even the simplest queries like:
using (MyDbContext entities = new MyDbContext)
{
User user = entities.Users.Find(userId); // ENCAPSULATE THIS ?
// Some BL Code here
}
So I guess your main point is testability of your code, isn't it? In such case you should start by counting responsibilities of the method you want to test and than refactor your code using single responsibility pattern.
Your example code has at least three responsibilities:
Creating an object is a responsibility - context is an object. Moreover it is and object you don't want to use in your unit test so you must move its creation elsewhere.
Executing query is a responsibility. Moreover it is a responsibility you would like to avoid in your unit test.
Doing some business logic is a responsibility
To simplify testing you should refactor your code and divide those responsibilities to separate methods.
public class MyBLClass()
{
public void MyBLMethod(int userId)
{
using (IMyContext entities = GetContext())
{
User user = GetUserFromDb(entities, userId);
// Some BL Code here
}
}
protected virtual IMyContext GetContext()
{
return new MyDbContext();
}
protected virtual User GetUserFromDb(IMyDbContext entities, int userId)
{
return entities.Users.Find(userId);
}
}
Now unit testing business logic should be piece of cake because your unit test can inherit your class and fake context factory method and query execution method and become fully independent on EF.
// NUnit unit test
[TestFixture]
public class MyBLClassTest : MyBLClass
{
private class FakeContext : IMyContext
{
// Create just empty implementation of context interface
}
private User _testUser;
[Test]
public void MyBLMethod_DoSomething()
{
// Test setup
int id = 10;
_testUser = new User
{
Id = id,
// rest is your expected test data - that is what faking is about
// faked method returns simply data your test method expects
};
// Execution of method under test
MyBLMethod(id);
// Test validation
// Assert something you expect to happen on _testUser instance
// inside MyBLMethod
}
protected override IMyContext GetContext()
{
return new FakeContext();
}
protected override User GetUserFromDb(IMyContext context, int userId)
{
return _testUser.Id == userId ? _testUser : null;
}
}
As you add more methods and your application grows you will refactor those query execution methods and context factory method to separate classes to follow single responsibility on classes as well - you will get context factory and either some query provider or in some cases repository (but that repository will never return IQueryable or get Expression as parameter in any of its methods). This will also allow you following DRY principle where your context creation and most commonly used queries will be defined only once on one central place.
So at the end you can have something like this:
public class MyBLClass()
{
private IContextFactory _contextFactory;
private IUserQueryProvider _userProvider;
public MyBLClass(IContextFactory contextFactory, IUserQueryProvider userProvider)
{
_contextFactory = contextFactory;
_userProvider = userProvider;
}
public void MyBLMethod(int userId)
{
using (IMyContext entities = _contextFactory.GetContext())
{
User user = _userProvider.GetSingle(entities, userId);
// Some BL Code here
}
}
}
Where those interfaces will look like:
public interface IContextFactory
{
IMyContext GetContext();
}
public class MyContextFactory : IContextFactory
{
public IMyContext GetContext()
{
// Here belongs any logic necessary to create context
// If you for example want to cache context per HTTP request
// you can implement logic here.
return new MyDbContext();
}
}
and
public interface IUserQueryProvider
{
User GetUser(int userId);
// Any other reusable queries for user entities
// Non of queries returns IQueryable or accepts Expression as parameter
// For example: IEnumerable<User> GetActiveUsers();
}
public class MyUserQueryProvider : IUserQueryProvider
{
public User GetUser(IMyContext context, int userId)
{
return context.Users.Find(userId);
}
// Implementation of other queries
// Only inside query implementations you can use extension methods on IQueryable
}
Your test will now only use fakes for context factory and query provider.
// NUnit + Moq unit test
[TestFixture]
public class MyBLClassTest
{
private class FakeContext : IMyContext
{
// Create just empty implementation of context interface
}
[Test]
public void MyBLMethod_DoSomething()
{
// Test setup
int id = 10;
var user = new User
{
Id = id,
// rest is your expected test data - that is what faking is about
// faked method returns simply data your test method expects
};
var contextFactory = new Mock<IContextFactory>();
contextFactory.Setup(f => f.GetContext()).Returns(new FakeContext());
var queryProvider = new Mock<IUserQueryProvider>();
queryProvider.Setup(f => f.GetUser(It.IsAny<IContextFactory>(), id)).Returns(user);
// Execution of method under test
var myBLClass = new MyBLClass(contextFactory.Object, queryProvider.Object);
myBLClass.MyBLMethod(id);
// Test validation
// Assert something you expect to happen on user instance
// inside MyBLMethod
}
}
It would be little bit different in case of repository which should have reference to context passed to its constructor prior to injecting it to your business class.
Your business class can still define some queries which are never use in any other classes - those queries are most probably part of its logic. You can also use extension methods to define some reusable part of queries but you must always use those extension methods outside of your core business logic which you want to unit test (either in query execution methods or in query provider / repository). That will allow you easy faking query provider or query execution methods.
I saw your previous question and thought about writing a blog post about that topic but the core of my opinion about testing with EF is in this answer.
Edit:
Repository is different topic which doesn't relate to your original question. Specific repository is still valid pattern. We are not against repositories, we are against generic repositories because they don't provide any additional features and don't solve any problem.
The problem is that repository alone doesn't solve anything. There are three patterns which have to be used together to form proper abstraction: Repository, Unit of Work and Specifications. All three are already available in EF: DbSet / ObjectSet as repositories, DbContext / ObjectContext as Unit of works and Linq to Entities as specifications. The main problem with custom implementation of generic repositories mentioned everywhere is that they replace only repository and unit of work with custom implementation but still depend on original specifications => abstraction is incomplete and it is leaking in tests where faked repository behaves in the same way as faked set / context.
The main disadvantage of my query provider is explicit method for any query you will need to execute. In case of repository you will not have such methods you will have just few methods accepting specification (but again those specifications should be defined in DRY principle) which will build query filtering conditions, ordering etc.
public interface IUserRepository
{
User Find(int userId);
IEnumerable<User> FindAll(ISpecification spec);
}
The discussion of this topic is far beyond the scope of this question and it requires you to do some self study.
Btw. mocking and faking has different purpose - you fake a call if you need to get testing data from method in the dependency and you mock the call if you need to assert that method on dependency was called with expected arguments.

MEF and IObservables

I have a singleton IObservable that returns the results of a Linq query. I have another class that listens to the IObservable to structure a message. That class is Exported through MEF, and I can import it and get asynchronous results from the Linq query.
My problem is that after initial composition takes place, I don't get any renotification on changes when the data supplied to the Linq query changes. I implemented INotifyPropertyChanged on the singleton, thinking it word make the exported class requery for a new IObservable, but this doesn't happen.
Maybe I'm not understanding something about the lifetime of MEF containers, or about property notification. I'd appreciate any help.
Below are the singleton and the exported class. I've left out some pieces of code that can be inferred, like the PropertyChanged event handlers and such. Suffice to say, that does work when the underlying Session data changes. The singleton raises a change event for UsersInCurrentSystem, but there is never any request for a new IObservable from the UsersInCurrentSystem property.
public class SingletonObserver: INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private static readonly SingletonObserver _instance = new SingletonObserver();
static SingletonObserver() { }
private SingletonObserver()
{
Session.ObserveProperty(xx => xx.CurrentSystem, true)
.Subscribe(x =>
{
this.RaisePropertyChanged(() => this.UsersInCurrentSystem);
});
}
public static SingletonObserverInstance { get { return _instance; } }
public IObservable<User> UsersInCurrentSystem
{
get
{
var x = from user in Session.CurrentSystem.Users
select user;
return x.ToObservable();
}
}
}
[Export]
public class UserStatus : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private string _data = string.Empty;
public UserStatus
{
SingletonObserver.Instance.UsersInCurrentSystem.Subscribe(sender =>
{
//set _data according to information in sender
//raise PropertyChanged for Data
}
}
public string Data
{
get { return _data; } }
}
}
My problem is that after initial composition takes place, I don't get any renotification on changes when the data supplied to the Linq query changes.
By default MEF will only compose parts once. When a part has been composed, the same instance will be supplied to all imports. The part will not be recreated unless you explicitly do so.
In your case, if the data of a part change, even if it implements INotifyPropertyChanged, MEF will not create a new one, and you don't need to anyway.
I implemented INotifyPropertyChanged on the singleton, thinking it word make the exported class requery for a new IObservable
No.
Maybe I'm not understanding something about the lifetime of MEF containers, or about property notification.
Property notification allows you to react to a change in the property and has no direct effect on MEF. As for the container's lifetime, it will remain active until it is disposed. While it is still active, the container will keep references to it's compose parts. It's actually a little more complex than that, as parts can have different CreationPolicy that affects how MEF holds the part, I refer you to the following page: Parts Lifetime for more information.
MEF does allow for something called Recomposition. You can set it likewise:
[Import(AllowRecomposition=true)]
What this does tough is allow MEF to recompose parts when new parts are available or existing parts aren't available anymore. From what I understand it isn't what you are referring to in your question.

Dependency Injection & Model Binding (ASP MVC, Autofac), When to use what?

This is more like a conceptual question. When to use Model Binding (in ASP.NET MVC Framework) and when to inject objects using IoC (lets say Autofac here) ?
One specific scenario is like lets say, I have the following action method
public ActionResult EditProfile(string UserId)
{
// get user object from repository using the the UserId
// edit profile
// save changes
// return feedback
}
In the above scenario, is it possible to inject a user object to action method such that it automatically gets the user object using the UserId ? The resulting signature being:
public ActionResult EditProfile(UserProfile userObj) //userObj injected *somehow* to automatically retreive the object from repo using UserId ?
Sorry if it all doesn't makes sense. It`s my first time using IoC.
EDIT:
This is the way to do it > http://buildstarted.com/2010/09/12/custom-model-binders-in-mvc-3-with-imodelbinder/
You can do what you need using a custom action filter. By overriding OnActionExecuting, we have access to the route data, and the action parameters of the action that will be executed. Given:
public class BindUserProfileAttribute : ActionFilterAttribute
{
public override OnActionExecuting(FilterContext filterContext)
{
string id = (string)filterContext.RouteData.Values["UserId"];
var model = new UserProfile { Id = id };
filtextContext.ActionParameters["userObj"] = model;
}
}
This attribute allows us to create the parameters that will be passed into the action, so we can load the user object at this point.
[BindUserProfile]
public ActionResult EditProfile(UserProfile userObj)
{
}
You'll probably need to get specific with your routes:
routes.MapRoute(
"EditProfile",
"Account/EditProfile/{UserId}",
new { controller = "Account", action = "EditProfile" });
In MVC3 we get access to the new IDepedencyResolver interface, which allows us to perform IoC/SL using whatever IoC container or service locator we want, so we can push a service like a IUserProfileFactory into your filter, to then be able to create your UserProfile instance.
Hope that helps?
Model binding is used for your data. Dependency injection is used for your business logic.