Posts tagged with 'asp.net'

Based on a Twitter conversation with Seth Petry-Johnson about mocking/faking SqlException objects in .NET, I decided to go ahead and put what I had written into an open-source project on GitHub. I didn't spend much time on the name: I thought about Sharp Stick and Pointy Stick, but those repo names have already been taken! So, I thought about "stick" some more and remembered the famous line from Lady Macbeth: "screw your courage to the sticking place". Well, I guess I don't have much of a future in professional naming.

Since I was creating a repo anyway, I thought I'd throw a couple of other helpers in there. I put in some of my favorite ASP.NET / ASP.NET MVC helpers and an obscure little string helper. I'm not trying to remake PGK Extensions or anything--just putting some stuff out there that might help someone.

I should also note that the SqlExceptionHelper stuff isn't entirely original: I borrowed some code from a 2006 blog post by Rido, and just updated the reflection code since the private constructor has changed since then (and could possibly change again, since it's a private constructor in a sealed class).

Anyway, go check out Sticking Place on GitHub and let me know what you think.

In a project that I'm working on, I'm using Dapper for data access and I'm using StructureMap as my IoC containter. It's an ASP.NET MVC project.

I was recently demoing the project to my partner on the staging site (Azure), and I ran into a troubling error having to do with data connections (that I had not experienced running it locally on IIS yet). I immediately thought that it must be an issue with the SQL connections (SqlDbConnection objects that implement the IDbConnection interface, per Dapper) not being closed and/or disposed of correctly.

I remember encountering the same issue when I was developing this very site that you are reading, and the solution is to use the HttpContext scope within StructureMap when configuring it for the IDbConnection interface.

Here's what I started with:

And here's what I refactored it to:

I just added HttpContextScoped (the default is PerRequest scope, see StructureMap docs on Scoping and Lifecycle Management). I also added the ReleaseAndDisposeAllHttpScopedObjects to Global.asax.cs, so that StructureMap would...release and dispose those objects at the end of each request.

However, when I did that, I was still getting problems. I would get exceptions saying that the SqlConnection ConnectionString was the empty string. Something wasn't right. I did some searching around about the issue in the docs, and couldn't really find what I was looking for. I did come across someone with a similar issue on StackOverflow, also trying to understand HttpContextScoped. The top answer from PHeiberg (not the accepted answer) pointed me the right direction.

I used a lambda expression instead of just passing the SqlConnection directly. So now my SqlDbConnections are scoped to the HttpContext, and will be cleaned up after every request. That should squash the issue I was seeing on the staging stie.

The principle of least surprise (sometimes known as the principle of least astonishment in more posh circles) is an axiom of design: typically UI design, but also software design. The idea is that some object, operation, device, etc, should be obvious and consistent with its name/appearance. A trivial example: a "left click" should be done by pushing the button farthest to the left on the mouse. To do otherwise would be quite surprising, and make for a bad experience. (That sounds shockingly simple, but it's just an example).

I was thinking about this when I was writing some validation code. I was thinking about a user selecting a U.S. State in a dropdown. On some forms, it's required for the user to select a State, on other forms it's optional.

I wrote a class to help me manage a list of States/Provinces like so:

Elsewhere, I wrote code to use the IsValidState method to check to see if the user, in fact, selected a valid state or not. The first time I did this, it was on a form where the field is required. So, if user doesn't select a state, then IsValidState wouldn't even get executed.

But, later on, I reused IsValidState on a form where the state field is optional. What happens when the state argument is null? A big fat exception, that's what. So, I changed the method:

Is that the correct decision? Or should IsValidState only be called when there's an actual value? I think I made the correct decision, because null isn't a State. Another decision that could be made is throwing an ArgumentException if the argument is null or empty. However, I don't think the correct decision was to leave the method the way it was.

So now let's enter the land of hypotheticals in order to think more about the principle of least surprise.

What if, instead of being a boolean function, IsValidState instead acted upon a StateArgs object being passed in (and its name was changed to ValidateState). Let's suppose there is some reason for this, and that part of the design is a given.  Suppose there's a Value string property with the State and an IsValid boolean property. (ASP.NET Validators, specifically CustomValidators, work like this: the validation method get an "args" object, and you can act upon it by manipulating args.IsValid). What would the correct behavior be then if args.Value is null? Clearly, args.IsValid shouldn't be set to true. So, should it be set to false, or should it just be left unchanged?

In this circumstance, ValidateState is probably one method call in a series of validation method calls (probably with some polymorphism involved with the parameter instead of a specific StateArgs class). So it seems like the least surprising thing to do would be to not make a decision (option A in the above source code). Since ValidateState does not return a value, it's not required to make a decision.

I was recently updating an ASP.NET project from MVC 4 to MVC 5 and I ran into some issues while compiling. The PostSharp post-compiler was complaining that it couldn't find a 4.0.0.0 version of an assembly.

PostSharp exception

I had the correct bindingRedirects in the Web.Config. I'm not completely clear on how and why bindingRedirects work, but as I understand it, this will redirect the compiler looking for a certain version of an assembly to another version of an assembly. Something like this:

I wasn't the first to run into this issue: I came across a similar question in the PostSharp support forums. PostSharp needs to be told where to look for the bindingRedirect confirmation (since PostSharp isn't specific to the web, the configuration could conceiveably be in app.config, web.config, or some other config file). So, I merely needed to add a PostSharpHostConfigurationFile property to the csproj file, as shown in the PostSharp documentation. After that, everything worked fine.

Matthew D. Groves

About the Author

Matthew D. Groves lives in Central Ohio. He works remotely, loves to code, and is a Microsoft MVP.

Latest Comments

Twitter