I have 2 master pages. One is intended to be shown in a normal standalone website. The other is to be used in external sites as an Iframe.
I want to be able to show the normal page at http://example.com/home/index and the iframed version at http://example.com/framed/home/index
I want to have controls that will postback to one controller so I don't have to duplicate logic, so they must be available in both the normal and iframed versions.
My problem is that when I try and use areas, I just can't get them to work right with the default url. Also, I have the added complication of structuremap. When I try and hit /area/controller/action, I get
The IControllerFactory
'MySite.Web.Code.IoC.StructureMapControllerFactory'
did not return a controller for the
name 'MyArea'.
Does anyone know how to make this kind of setup work? Really all I'm doing is trying to show one set of views if it has /Framed/controller/action and another set if it does not have /framed. I thought areas were the way to go, but maybe not.
All of our controllers implement the same base class, and we use the following override to do what you're describing:
protected override ViewResult View(string viewName, string masterName, object model)
{
if (masterName == null)
{
var options = PortalRequestManager.CurrentPortalRouteOptions;
masterName = options.MvcMasterPath;
}
return base.View(viewName, masterName, model);
}
All of our AreaRegistrations use the following method to register their areas:
public static void RegisterMvcAreaRoutes(AreaRegistrationContext context, string name, string url,
object defaults)
{
context.MapRoute(name + "Portal",
"P/Channel/" + url,
defaults);
context.MapRoute(name + "FramePortal",
"F/Channel/" + url,
defaults);
}
And then the PortalRequestManager that you saw in the first code block parses the URL to see if it uses "/P" or "/F" to determine which MvcMasterPath to use.
We use Ninject's controller factory, which has no problem with this setup, so I can't really speak to your problems with StructureMap.
Related
This question is related to:
Fiori - Cross Application Navigation
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_uiaddon10/helpdata/en/07/9561b716bb4f2f8ae4e47bacbdb86d/content.htm
Remove URL params on routing
My use case is like this:
I have multiple applications that should link to others (deep).
Since documentation of cross navigation mention to avoid deep links I decided to use a startup parameter.
For example:
Application A has a list of some items in the detail view of one item there is a reference to another application B that contains some other details.
Assume A shows article details and B shows some details of a producer of an article.
Application A would now use some navigation like this:
sap.ushell.Container.getService("CrossApplicationNavigation").hrefForExternal({
target : { semanticObject : "ApplicationB", action : "display" },
params : { "someID" : "102343333"}
})
Now in application B I use code like this inside the Component.js at the end of the init method.
var oRouter = that.getRouter().initialize();
var oComponentData = this.getComponentData();
if (oComponentData.startupParameters) {
oRouter.navTo("SomeView", {
someId : oComponentData.startupParameters.someID[0],
}, false);
}
First question: Is this the right place for handling the startup parameters?
Second question: If I using the navigation the startup parameter will still be in the code, I would prefer to remove it, but how?
Update
In the target application (B) it would lead to the following URL:
https://server/sap/bc/ui5_ui5/ui2/ushell/shells/abap/FioriLaunchpad.html?sap-client=100&sap-language=EN#SemObject-display?someID=102343333&/SomeView(102343333)/
Anyhow I would prefere to have something like this:
https://server/sap/bc/ui5_ui5/ui2/ushell/shells/abap/FioriLaunchpad.html?sap-client=100&sap-language=EN#SemObject-display?/SomeView(102343333)/
The parameter must be retrieved as
var oComponentData = this.getComponentData();
if (oComponentData.startupParameters) {
oRouter.navTo("SomeView", {
someId : oComponentData.startupParameters.someID[0],
}, false);
as you write. In Fiori applications, the startup parameters injected into the Component data of your constructor may have been renamed, enriched by further default values etc.. Thus they may be distinct from the parameter one observes in the url. Applications are advised to refrain from trying to inspect the URL directly.
If one supplies a very long set of url parameters, one will observer that the FLP replaces some of them with sap-intent-param=AS123424 ("compacted URL") to work around url length restrictions on some platforms and in bookmarks, in the
getComponentData().startupParameters one will receive the full set of parameters).
As to the second question.
No, there is currently no way to "cleanse" the URL and avoid the redundancy between and inner app route.
SemObject-display?someID=102343333&/SomeView(102343333)/
which after navigation may look like
SemObject-display?someID=102343333&/SomeView(102343999)/
App was started with 102343333, but then user navigated within the app to another item (102343999).
Any change in the "Shell-part" of the has (SemObject-display?someID102343333) will lead to a cross-app-navigation (reinstantiation of your component) with a different startupParameter.
(There are cases where this is desired in the flow, e.g. a cross navigation from a OrgUnit factsheet to the parent OrgUnit factsheet via a link).
There were ideas within SAP to fuse the inner-app routes and the intent parameters, but they were not carried out, as it's mostly url aesthetics.
Note: To support boomarking, one has to respect both startup parameters and
inner app route during component instantiation,
assuming the user created a bookmark on
SemObject-display?someID=102343333&/SomeView(102343999)/
(While he was looking at 9999(!)).
When reinstantiating the app, the inner app route should take higher precedence than startup-parameters.
So amend the code to:
var oComponentData = this.getComponentData();
if (oComponentData.startupParameters) {
if (sap.ui.core.getHashChanger().getHash()=== "") {
// if no inner app route present, navigate
oRouter.navTo("SomeView", {
someId : oComponentData.startupParameters.someID[0],
}, false);
}
}
https://sapui5.netweaver.ondemand.com/#docs/api/symbols/sap.ushell.services.CrossApplicationNavigation.html
SAP Fiori Launchpad for Developers, Navigation Concept
http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/scn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/907ae317-cb47-3210-9bba-e1b5e70e5c79?QuickLink=index&overridelayout=true&59575491523067
I was having issues navigating from a Fiori elements app in to a deep page in a freestyle UI5 app and then answer from #user6649841 provided most the solution for my requirement.
In my instance, navigating from the elements list report (app "A") in to the target freestyle app (app "B") I didn't want the worklist/initial page in app B to display at all and instead go straight to the detail page without a flickering of the initial app screen.
The below worked for me, note though it doesn't solve the ugly URL issues. In my case I'm not fussed about it as my nav back will nav back to the elements list report (App A) and never show the worklist page in App B so the user will never make another search on top of this URL which would lead with inconsistent inner and outer keys
Component.js (at end of init function after all the standard sap code, but before router initialization):
var oComponentData = this.getComponentData();
var startupParams = oComponentData.startupParameters;
if (startupParams && startupParams.myQueryStringParamName && startupParams.myQueryStringParamName[0]) {
//In my case using hash changer as I dont want the original landing page (default route) to be
//in the history, so the detail page loads straight away and nav back will cause to nav back to App A
var hashChanger = sap.ui.core.routing.HashChanger.getInstance();
hashChanger.replaceHash("detailPage/" + startupParams.myQueryStringParamName[0]);
}
//initialise after the above so the new hash is set and it doesnt initially load the
//page assigned to the default route causing a flickering and nav slide effect
this.getRouter().initialize();
Looking at the UI5 SDK in UI5 1.48 and above in the initialize method of router you can pass in a boolean to tell it to ignore the initial hash so possibly can do a simpler implementation in newer releases of UI5
Is Component.js right place for handling the startup parameters?
Depends,if you have multiple views and you want to dynamically route based on the incoming parameters. Else you can handle in specific view also.
Your second question was not quite clear to me.
Nevertheless, if you want to only specific cases of startup parameters, then from Source App, set some flag to understand where is the request coming from and handle accordingly. So this way, your normal navigation won't be tampered.
I have a very weird problem with Unity here. I have the following:
public class UnityConfig
{
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
container.RegisterType<IDBContext, MyDbContext>(new PerThreadLifetimeManager());
container.RegisterType<IUserDbContext>(new PerThreadLifetimeManager(), new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var tenantConnectionString = c.Resolve<ITenantConnectionResolver>().ResolveConnectionString();
return new UserDbContext(tenantConnectionString);
}));
}
}
and then in the WebApiConfig.cs file within the Reigster method:
var container = new UnityContainer();
UnityConfig.RegisterTypes(container);
config.DependencyResolver = new UnityResolver(container);
Basically, what I want to happen in the above code is on every request to the API, I want Unity to new up a UserDbContext based on the user (multi-tenant kind of environment). Now the TenantConnectionResolver is responsible for figuring out the Connection String and then I use that connection string to new up UserDbContext.
Also note (not shown above) that TenantConnectionResolver takes an IDbConext in its constructor because I need it to figure out the connection string based on user information in that database.
But for some reason, the code within the InjectionFactory runs at random times. For example, I call //mysite.com/controller/action/1 repetitively from a browser, the code in the InjectionFactory will occasionally run but not on each request.
Am I incorrectly configuring Unity? Has anybody encountered anything similar to this?
Thanks in advance
The problem is very likely related to the LifetimeManager you are using. PerThreadLifetimeManager is not adapted in a web context, as threads are pooled and will serve multiple requests in sequence.
PerRequestLifetimeManager is probably what you want to use.
I'm looking specifically for a way to automatically hyphenate CamelCase actions and views. That is, I'm hoping I don't have to actually rename my views or add decorators to every ActionResult in the site.
So far, I've been using routes.MapRouteLowercase, as shown here. That works pretty well for the lowercase aspect of URL structure, but not hyphens. So I recently started playing with Canonicalize (install via NuGet), but it also doesn't have anything for hyphens yet.
I was trying...
routes.Canonicalize().NoWww().Pattern("([a-z0-9])([A-Z])", "$1-$2").Lowercase().NoTrailingSlash();
My regular expression definitely works the way I want it to as far as restructuring the URL properly, but those URLs aren't identified, of course. The file is still ChangePassword.cshtml, for example, so /account/change-password isn't going to point to that.
BTW, I'm still a bit rusty with .NET MVC. I haven't used it for a couple years and not since v2.0.
This might be a tad bit messy, but if you created a custom HttpHandler and RouteHandler then that should prevent you from having to rename all of your views and actions. Your handler could strip the hyphen from the requested action, which would change "change-password" to changepassword, rendering the ChangePassword action.
The code is shortened for brevity, but the important bits are there.
public void ProcessRequest(HttpContext context)
{
string controllerId = this.requestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("controller");
string view = this.requestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("action");
view = view.Replace("-", "");
this.requestContext.RouteData.Values["action"] = view;
IController controller = null;
IControllerFactory factory = null;
try
{
factory = ControllerBuilder.Current.GetControllerFactory();
controller = factory.CreateController(this.requestContext, controllerId);
if (controller != null)
{
controller.Execute(this.requestContext);
}
}
finally
{
factory.ReleaseController(controller);
}
}
I don't know if I implemented it the best way or not, that's just more or less taken from the first sample I came across. I tested the code myself so this does render the correct action/view and should do the trick.
I've developed an open source NuGet library for this problem which implicitly converts EveryMvc/Url to every-mvc/url.
Uppercase urls are problematic because cookie paths are case-sensitive, most of the internet is actually case-sensitive while Microsoft technologies treats urls as case-insensitive. (More on my blog post)
NuGet Package: https://www.nuget.org/packages/LowercaseDashedRoute/
To install it, simply open the NuGet window in the Visual Studio by right clicking the Project and selecting NuGet Package Manager, and on the "Online" tab type "Lowercase Dashed Route", and it should pop up.
Alternatively, you can run this code in the Package Manager Console:
Install-Package LowercaseDashedRoute
After that you should open App_Start/RouteConfig.cs and comment out existing route.MapRoute(...) call and add this instead:
routes.Add(new LowercaseDashedRoute("{controller}/{action}/{id}",
new RouteValueDictionary(
new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }),
new DashedRouteHandler()
)
);
That's it. All the urls are lowercase, dashed, and converted implicitly without you doing anything more.
Open Source Project Url: https://github.com/AtaS/lowercase-dashed-route
Have you tried working with the URL Rewrite package? I think it pretty much what you are looking for.
http://www.iis.net/download/urlrewrite
Hanselman has a great example herE:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ASPNETMVCAndTheNewIIS7RewriteModule.aspx
Also, why don't you download something like ReSharper or CodeRush, and use it to refactor the Action and Route names? It's REALLY easy, and very safe.
It would time well spent, and much less time overall to fix your routing/action naming conventions with an hour of refactoring than all the hours you've already spent trying to alter the routing conventions to your needs.
Just a thought.
I tried the solution in the accepted answer above: Using the Canonicalize Pattern url strategy, and then also adding a custom IRouteHandler which then returns a custom IHttpHandler. It mostly worked. Here's one caveat I found:
With the typical {controller}/{action}/{id} default route, a controller named CatalogController, and an action method inside it as follows:
ActionResult QuickSelect(string id){ /*do some things, access the 'id' parameter*/ }
I noticed that requests to "/catalog/quick-select/1234" worked perfectly, but requests to /catalog/quick-select?id=1234 were 500'ing because once the action method was called as a result of controller.Execute(), the id parameter was null inside of the action method.
I do not know exactly why this is, but the behavior was as if MVC was not looking at the query string for values during model binding. So something about the ProcessRequest implementation in the accepted answer was screwing up the normal model binding process, or at least the query string value provider.
This is a deal breaker, so I took a look at default MVC IHttpHandler (yay open source!): http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#src/System.Web.Mvc/MvcHandler.cs
I will not pretend that I grok'ed it in its entirety, but clearly, it's doing ALOT more in its implementation of ProcessRequest than what is going on in the accepted answer.
So, if all we really need to do is strip dashes from our incoming route data so that MVC can find our controllers/actions, why do we need to implement a whole stinking IHttpHandler? We don't! Simply rip out the dashes in the GetHttpHandler method of DashedRouteHandler and pass the requestContext along to the out of the box MvcHandler so it can do its 252 lines of magic, and your route handler doesn't have to return a second rate IHttpHandler.
tl:dr; - Here's what I did:
public class DashedRouteHandler : IRouteHandler
{
public IHttpHandler GetHttpHandler(RequestContext requestContext)
{
requestContext.RouteData.Values["action"] = requestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("action").Replace("-", "");
requestContext.RouteData.Values["controller"] = requestContext.RouteData.GetRequiredString("controller").Replace("-", "");
return new MvcHandler(requestContext);
}
}
I am using wicket 1.4.9 and implemented spring + wicket auth-role and using #AuthorizeInstantiation based on roles on pages. I have multiple custom roles.
I have followed this link to implement the basics:
https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring-security-and-wicket-auth-roles.html
After that I have implemented my own UserDetailsService to have my own roles/users from database.
Now, How can I impose controls on roles with components eg, Links,Buttons ? like
link A can be accessed only by SUPER_USER, DR_MANAGER. (roles comes from database).
I have done like this and it seems to work, but is that the good way to do this? OrbitWebSession is of type AuthenticatedWebSession.
#Override
public boolean isVisible() {
if(OrbitWebSession.get().getRoles().hasRole("SUPER_USER")){
return true;
}
return false;
}
thanks.
Overriding isVisible all the time is a major pain. Take a look at MetaDataRoleAuthorizationStrategy instead. You call authorize(Component component, Action action, String roles) with Action RENDER, and the roles you want to allow. This way the component, whatever it is, is automatically hidden for other roles provided that the authorization strategy is registered in your webapplication. Basically it does the same thing as Holms answer, except you don't have to subclass anything.
You are in the right track, the only change I would do is:
#Override
public boolean isVisible() {
return super.isVisible() && OrbitWebSession.get().getRoles().hasRole("SUPER_USER");
}
That way you don't accidentally override its default visible behavior for example if the parent component is not visible.
Using the #AuthorizeAction annotation you can control wether the component is rendered or not based on roles. It's quite easy to use, but you have to subclass the component that you want to authorize.
#AuthorizeAction(action = Action.RENDER, roles = { "SUPER_USER", "DR_MANAGER" })
class UserAdminPageLink extends BookmarkablePageLink<String> {
//Implementation…
}
add(new UserAdminPageLink("UserAdminPageLink", UserAdminPage.class));
Check out Wicket Examples - Authorization for some working code.
We are currently hosting a asp.net mvc 2 website in IIS 6. In this application we override the 'Create Controler' method and configure a custom view engine. This engine specifies the location of the views depending on the url format. for example; if a user lands on www.asite.com/test/1.0/index.aspx
the view engine tells mvc to look for index.aspx in the 'sitedirectory/test/1.0/views/pages/' directory;
string versionDirectory = String.Format("~/{0}/{1}", offerCode, version.ToString("#0.0000"));
ViewLocationFormats = new[]
{
versionDirectory + "/Views/Pages/{0}.aspx",
versionDirectory + "/Views/Pages/{0}.ascx",
"~/Views/Pages/{0}.aspx",
"~/Views/Pages/{0}.ascx",
"~/Shared/Views/{0}.aspx",
"~/Shared/Views/{0}.ascx"
};
MasterLocationFormats = new[]
{
versionDirectory + "/Views/Layouts/{0}.master",
"~/Views/Layouts/{0}.master"
};
PartialViewLocationFormats = ViewLocationFormats;
The Issue that we are having is that when two or more users land on the site at roughly the same time,
the views that get loaded can get switched around. However the data that is shown for those views is correct.
does anyone have any ideas why this would be happening?
This is a (little) known issue - there is a problem with caching going on.
Take a look at this post:
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ABetterASPNETMVCMobileDeviceCapabilitiesViewEngine.aspx
And go through the comments.
I ended up implementing owe view engine that derives from IViewEngine directly and uses WebFormsViewEngine internally.