Category Archives: Dependency Injection

Dependency Injection in Minimal APIs in .Net 6

Minimal Apis in .Net 6 are really an absolutely amazing feature – you can create an API in about 5 or 6 lines of code. If you have a look online, you’ll see a plethora of examples… but unfortunately, they all show you how to write a “Hello World” API.

I’ve recently been playing with these, and initially found the least obvious part to be the DI part. In a controller, you’d simply inject the dependencies into the constructor of the controller; however, the approach is more nuanced with the minimal APIs. Essentially, you use the parameters of the method itself.

Let’s investigate this by looking at a very simple post method:

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add services to the container.
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();

var app = builder.Build();

// Configure the HTTP request pipeline.
if (app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
    app.UseSwagger();
    app.UseSwaggerUI();
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();

app.MapPost("/test", () =>
{
    return Results.Ok();
});

app.Run();

This is a cut down version of the code you’ll get from the weather forecast example in the default template. Now, let’s assume that we want to use the IHttpClientFactory from the controller; we can simply do this:

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add services to the container.
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();
builder.Services.AddHttpClient(); // Add HttpClient here

var app = builder.Build();

// Configure the HTTP request pipeline.
if (app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
    app.UseSwagger();
    app.UseSwaggerUI();
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();

app.MapPost("/test", (IHttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) =>
{
    var client = httpClientFactory.CreateClient();
    return Results.Ok();
});

app.Run();

As you can see, we’ve injected IHttpClientFactory into our method. This works well, but what if we now want to accept a serialised body in our request; consider the following example:

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add services to the container.
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();
builder.Services.AddHttpClient(); // Add HttpClient here

var app = builder.Build();

// Configure the HTTP request pipeline.
if (app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
    app.UseSwagger();
    app.UseSwaggerUI();
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();

app.MapPost("/test", (MyClass myClass, IHttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) =>
{
    var client = httpClientFactory.CreateClient();
    return Results.Ok();
});

app.Run();

We’re passing in MyClass; and, in fact, this will now work – when you run it, you’ll see from swagger that it will expect you to pass the contents of MyClass into the endpoint. “That’s great,” I hear you ask, “But what if I want to register MyClass in the DI and pass that in?” To which I’ll respond: “Well – this actually works out of the box”:

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add services to the container.
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();
builder.Services.AddHttpClient(); // Add HttpClient here
builder.Services.AddSingleton<MyClass>(new MyClass() { SomeProperty = "aardvark"});

var app = builder.Build();

// Configure the HTTP request pipeline.
if (app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
    app.UseSwagger();
    app.UseSwaggerUI();
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();

app.MapPost("/test", (MyClass myClass, IHttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) =>
{
    var client = httpClientFactory.CreateClient();
    return Results.Ok();
});

app.Run();

The DI is clever enough to determine that you’ve registered a singleton, and so you don’t need that information passing into the endpoint. Again, I hear the reader query this: “All very well, but what if I haven’t registered the class in the DI, but I wanted to and forgot?” Again, I’d respond: “Ah – an excellent question!” You can, indeed force the issue: just as you can use the [FromBody] attribute to insist that the endpoint takes the value from the endpoint body, so you can use the [FromServices] attribute to tell it that you want the class to be resolved from the DI:

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

// Add services to the container.
// Learn more about configuring Swagger/OpenAPI at https://aka.ms/aspnetcore/swashbuckle
builder.Services.AddEndpointsApiExplorer();
builder.Services.AddSwaggerGen();
builder.Services.AddHttpClient(); // Add HttpClient here
//builder.Services.AddSingleton<MyClass>(new MyClass() { SomeProperty = "aardvark"});

var app = builder.Build();

// Configure the HTTP request pipeline.
if (app.Environment.IsDevelopment())
{
    app.UseSwagger();
    app.UseSwaggerUI();
}

app.UseHttpsRedirection();

app.MapPost("/test", ([FromServices]MyClass myClass, IHttpClientFactory httpClientFactory) =>
{
    var client = httpClientFactory.CreateClient();
    return Results.Ok();
});

app.Run();

The above code will run, and when you call the endpoint, it will crash, telling you that you haven’t told it what you want MyClass to be.

Summary

All pretty nifty if you ask me – it works by default for the 90% case, and for the last 10% there are some simple attributes you can set to force the issue.

I should probably just add that, generally speaking, adding functionality directly to the controller / endpoint method is a bad idea. Most of the time, what you’ll really want to do in the endpoint is simply resolve a service and call a method there.

References

https://benfoster.io/blog/mvc-to-minimal-apis-aspnet-6/

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/minimal-apis

https://www.hanselman.com/blog/exploring-a-minimal-web-api-with-aspnet-core-6

Configuration and Dependency Injection

In this post, I wrote about how to mock out the configuration for an application. What I did not cover in that post was whether it was a good idea to pass around IConfiguration. The answer is that, at least in my opinion, it’s a very bad idea.

In this post, I’d like to discuss why I think it’s a bad idea, and my take on a better idea.

Single Responsibility

The first reason is that you are, essentially, breaking the principle of single responsibility. Let’s imagine that we have a class that accepts an IConfiguration as a parameter. When you need an element from the configuration, you have to issue a command like this:

var myValue = new _configuration.GetValue<string>("MyValue");

So, what’s wrong with this? It’s not exactly complex code, and it’s intent is clear. However, your method is now doing two things: it’s doing what it was intended to do, and it’s reading from the configuration. If MyValue changes (say you want to call it “MyNewValue”) then you have to change your method – but your method should not care where, or how this value is retrieved! Let’s say my full class is this:

public class CalculateTemperature 
{
    private IConfiguration _configuration;
    public CalculateTemperature(IConfiguration configuration)
    {
        _configuration = configuration;
    }

    public bool IsFreezing(double temperature)
    {
        string scale = _configuration.GetValue<string>("TempScale");
        switch (scale)
        {
            case "Fahrenheit":
                return temperature == 32;

            case "Centigrade":
                return temperature == 0;

            case "Kelvin":
                return temperature == 273;

        }
    }
}

Okay, so I have a class, and a method – the class is responsible for temperature calculations, and the method for telling me if a given temperature is the freezing point of water. However, the IsFreezing method also gets a setting from the configuration file. What this means is that the method above already has a potential bug: what if the setting is not present, or it’s set to some other temperature scale, “Celcius” for example; so you now end up with a method that looks like this:

    public bool IsFreezing(double temperature)
    {
        string scale = _configuration.GetValue<string>("TempScale");
        switch (scale)
        {
            case "Fahrenheit":
                return temperature == 32;

            case "Centigrade":
            case "Celcius":
                return temperature == 0;

            case "Kelvin":
                return temperature == 273;

            case default:
                throw new Exception($"Temperature scale is unsupported");
        }
    }

Buy why should this method have to deal with what’s in the configuration file? A better implementation of this method would be something like this:

    public bool IsFreezing(double temperature, Scale scale)
    {
        switch (scale)
        {
            case Scale.Fahrenheit:
                return temperature == 32;

            case Scale.Centigrade:
                return temperature == 0;

            case Scale.Kelvin:
                return temperature == 273;
        }
    }

Now I can create a config full of ANSI art for all this method cares; and as a result, I can get rid of IConfiguration out of the class.

Testing

The second reason, as I think I implied, is that it is not straight-forward to mock out the IConfiguration class. That fact that I created a blog post on the subject means that it needs one (at least for me), which means it’s far too much hassle; which means that classes and methods that contain this are less likely to be tested.

The Real World

The example I’ve given above isn’t a very realistic example, and I’m sure that no-one reading this would create a method that read from the config for a setting that so clearly relates to the method; however, the following is a very common thing, and I’m sure that you have written something akin to this, somewhere (I know I have):

public class TemperatureRepository
{
    private IConfiguration _configuration;
    public CalculateTemperature(IConfiguration configuration)
    {
        _configuration = configuration;
    }

    public bool WasFreezingLastWeek(DateTime dateTime)
    {
        string connectionString = _configuration.GetValue<string>("ConnectionString");

        . . . 
    }
}

The exact same argument applies to this, as did for the method above, but this doesn’t feel so wrong. The reason is that you know what the Startup.cs call looks like when your class looks like this:

public class TemperatureRepository
{
    private string _connectionString;
    public CalculateTemperature(string connectionString)
    {
        _connectionString = connectionString;
    }

    public bool WasFreezingLastWeek(DateTime dateTime)
    {
        . . . 
    }
}

You either need to create the class before you inject it, or do something like this:

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
    services.AddScoped<ITemperatureRepository>(srv => 
    {        
          new  TemperatureRepository(Configuration.GetValue<string>("ConnectionString"));
    });
}

In fact, I don’t think this looks too bad but, recently, I’ve been using a slightly different approach, which allows you to avoid this: that is to register a class that contains your config. If you have three or four values, then maybe have one config class for your entire application; if there’s more then have as many as make sense:

public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
    var configClass = new ConfigClass()
    {
        ConnectionString = Configuration.GetValue<string>("ConnectionString");
    };

    services.AddScoped<ConfigClass>(configClass);
    services.AddScoped<ITemperatureRepository>();
}

Summary

I’m not sure this warranted such a long blog post, but it’s a Saturday afternoon and the pubs are closed!

Caveat

None of the code in this post has been tested – it’s all been written in OneNote – I didn’t think the specific code syntax was particularly relevant, given it’s more of an opinion post.

Unity Lifetime Manager

If you’ve ever used an IoC container, you’ll know that one of their benefits and burdens is that they abstract away from you the hassle of managing your dependencies. Just declare your interfaces as constructor parameters and then register those dependencies at startup, and the IoC container will propogate your class. Your registration may look like this:

    container.RegisterType<IMyService, MyService>();

But what about when your class has state? For example, what if I have this sort of thing:

    container.RegisterType<IMyData, MyData>();

Here we’re using unity, but it appears that the default behaviour for most IoC containers is transient – that is, they are created each time they are resolved. This is important, not just because you will lose data that you thought you had (in fact that’s one of the better scenarios – because it’s obvious that it’s not behaving how you expect), but because if you’re caching results of queries and so forth, you might find your application is going back for data that you thought it already had. Here’s an example, using Unity, that proves this:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    var container = new UnityContainer();
 
    container.RegisterType<IMyService, MyService>();
    container.RegisterType<IMyData, MyData>();
 
    container.Resolve<IMyData>().Test = "testing";
    container.Resolve<IMyService>().TestFunction();
 
    Console.ReadLine();
}

The service class might look like this:

public interface IMyService
{
    void TestFunction();
}
 
public class MyService : IMyService
{
    private readonly IMyData myData;
 
    public MyService(IMyData myData)
    {
        this.myData = myData;
    }
 
    public void TestFunction()
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"Test Data: {myData.Test}");
    }
}

And the data class:

public interface IMyData
{
    string Test { get; set; }
}
public class MyData : IMyData
{
    public string Test { get; set; }
}

If you run that, you’ll see that the output is:

Test Data: 

Different IoC containers have slightly different life times – in fact, in the .Net Core IoC, you have to now explicitly register as Singleton, Transient or Scoped. In Unity, you can do something like this:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
    var container = new UnityContainer();
 
    container.RegisterType<IMyService, MyService>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
    container.RegisterType<IMyData, MyData>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager());
 
    container.Resolve<IMyData>().Test = "testing";
    container.Resolve<IMyService>().TestFunction();
 
    Console.ReadLine();
}