Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). #171

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-02-20T17:50:01Z

This PR introduces the possibility to 'initialize' options at the start up time. It will prevent possible config issues that might occur in runtime because of incorrect config file.

Also, it allows to use initializers to write some custom logic to instantiate options objects.

Added possibility to configure options with initializers in order to initialize options at the start up time (not at runtime).

dnfclas · 2017-02-20T17:50:05Z

Hi @MaKCbIMKo, I'm your friendly neighborhood .NET Foundation Pull Request Bot (You can call me DNFBOT). Thanks for your contribution!

In order for us to evaluate and accept your PR, we ask that you sign a contribution license agreement. It's all electronic and will take just minutes. I promise there's no faxing. https://cla2.dotnetfoundation.org.

TTYL, DNFBOT;

dnfclas · 2017-02-20T18:02:42Z

@MaKCbIMKo, Thanks for signing the contribution license agreement so quickly! Actual humans will now validate the agreement and then evaluate the PR.

Thanks, DNFBOT;

Add possibility to configure options validation and perform validation at start up.

HaoK · 2017-03-07T19:04:01Z

src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options.Validation/OptionsValidationServiceCollectionExtensions.cs

+            return services;
+        }
+
+        public static IServiceCollection Validate<TOptions>(this IServiceCollection services, Expression<Func<TOptions, bool>> validateExpression)


What do you think about a less restrictive signature for the validation? If we call it Validation but treat it effectively as a second set of actions that run after the Configure step. This would let you write Validations that both Assert/SetDefaults. What you have today I think would be good as something built on top, sugar that makes it easy for you to register an expression that returns a bool.

Something like Validate(Action<TOptions> options) as well.

What do you think?

So, you suggest adding a few overloads for Validate method with a lightweight signature, correct?

I was thinking about using Action<TOptions> as a parameter. But it would require to use exceptions to signal that options are invalid. As far as I remember, using bool is faster than exceptions. Moreover, if will expect exception we will have to wrap into try/catch block each separated validation call (in other case validation will be stopped after first validation failed).

I was trying to use Func<TOptions, bool> at first, but I found Expression more informative, because it provides information that might help identify the problem (and might be logged).

Yeah I was thinking we layer things on. So at the lowest layer there's a Validate that just takes an Action, then we can build additional overloads that take expression/func and return bools, that way there's still the flexibility to drop down and do something different if they don't want to follow the more constrained func/expression/bool route.

We wouldn't necessarily have to do anything to support wrapping exceptions either this way, since that's the lowest level API

I've got your point. I will add the lowest layer overloads.

I'm thinking maybe the higher level overload should be Func<TOptions, IEnumerable<Exception>> they can return multiple validation exceptions this way so its slightly more powerful than a bool

HaoK · 2017-03-07T21:19:24Z

Take a look at #161 which is tracking some features which would be useful for options to provide for the Auth 2.0 work, named options will add a bit of a wrinkle since there'd need to be the ability to target All instances vs named instances, vs the default instance. We haven't decided that we are bringing back named options yet, but its something to consider

remove redundant rows.

OptionsCache class replaced with OptionsFactory. OptionsFactory is an additional injection point that might be used.

Add more flexibility of configuration and validation result handling.

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-03-14T18:21:37Z

@HaoK, I've modified (a lot) of validation stuff. Moreover, I took a look on feature (about multi-tenant) and found that it might require some validation 'on creation' time. I also added that (wasn't not a big deal).

About multi-tenancy: it all depends on how we will configure all these 'names', where we will store cached instances (for different names), but I think it won't be so difficult to modify current validation to work in a new way.

But, only if you have some roadblocks that you still not sure (or don't know) how to break...

HaoK · 2017-03-14T18:27:10Z

Thanks, I'll try to take a look this week

HaoK · 2017-03-16T00:16:25Z

So I'm going to be starting a PR for #161, it will be a pretty lightweight feature to start, I'll submit it by EOD tomorrow, so you can provide input and insight since you've been playing around with validation for a while. The initial critical feature is named options support, so the first iteration of the PR will likely have very minimal validation support (think Action<TOption>).

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-03-16T13:13:16Z

Ok, waiting for your PR.

HaoK · 2017-03-16T19:22:25Z

Take a look at #176

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-03-16T20:19:58Z

@HaoK - I reviewed #176 and left a comment.

What I found is that your PR might reduce the amount of changes and be some kind of 'base' for this PR. (see the comments for #176).

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-03-29T21:30:21Z

@HaoK - Is it fine to base this PR over your initial Options 2.0 changes? Or there more changes are comming?

Maybe something in my PR need to be reconsidered...

HaoK · 2017-03-29T21:43:03Z

Feel free to rebase if you want, there likely will be more changes coming, but it won't be for a few weeks

Add unit tests for validation.

# Conflicts: # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options/OptionsCache.cs # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options/OptionsManager.cs # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options/OptionsMonitor.cs # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options/OptionsServiceCollectionExtensions.cs # test/Microsoft.Extensions.Options.Test/Microsoft.Extensions.Options.Test.csproj # test/Microsoft.Extensions.Options.Test/OptionsSnapshotTest.cs

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-06-26T16:36:54Z

@HaoK - I have added a possibility to validate all named options. Please take a look.

p.s. there is some problems with Travis CI check (Error: Unable to locate libunwind. Install libunwind to continue) - not sure how to solve that weather the problem with my changes.

# Conflicts: # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions/ConfigurationChangeTokenSource.cs # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options/LegacyOptionsCache.cs # src/Microsoft.Extensions.Options/OptionsServiceCollectionExtensions.cs

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-07-18T09:23:25Z

Changes from dev branch has been merged. @HaoK - may I ask you to review the PR?

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-07-18T09:26:27Z

About 'AppVeyor build failed' - seems like it faced the exception during downloading "https://dotnetcli.azureedge.net/dotnet/Sdk/2.0.0-preview3-006785/dotnet-sdk-2.0.0-preview3-006785-win-x64.zip" (I managed to download it locally). then it switched to alt download link "https://dotnetcli.azureedge.net/dotnet/Sdk/2.0.0-preview3-006785/dotnet-dev-win-x64.2.0.0-preview3-006785.zip" - which seems to be not working.

@HaoK - maybe we just need to try to re-run the AppVeyor build?

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-08-25T09:41:11Z

@HaoK - did you have a chance to take a look at this PR?

HaoK · 2017-08-25T09:57:31Z

I took a look, but we haven't signed up to do this work yet, so drilling into the details/implementation is a bit premature until we actually are trying to get this feature implemented.

MaKCbIMKo · 2017-08-25T10:01:57Z

Do you mean that this feature is not in roadmap?

Can we do anything in order to sign this up?

HaoK · 2017-08-25T10:05:09Z

Yes, feedback/comments in #227 saying why you want/need this feature will help get it prioritized higher/sooner.

aspnet-hello · 2018-01-01T20:15:01Z

This issue was moved to dotnet/aspnetcore#2392

aspnet-hello · 2018-01-02T01:23:24Z

Sorry I was a bad bot. Re-opening this PR.

HaoK · 2018-07-31T19:16:39Z

See #266 for initial validation support

MaKCbIMKo added 2 commits February 20, 2017 20:38

Add 'Initializer' concept.

e217216

Added possibility to configure options with initializers in order to initialize options at the start up time (not at runtime).

Merge with original repo.

bfd9733

dnfclas added the cla-required label Feb 20, 2017

MaKCbIMKo mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2017

Add ability to 'initialize' options object by providing 'initializer' #166

Closed

dnfclas added cla-signed and removed cla-required labels Feb 20, 2017

MaKCbIMKo added 4 commits February 21, 2017 20:29

Add a few more tests for 'Initializer'

8b5ccc8

Add to ignore '.vscode' folder

d01b498

Remove 'Initializer' stuff.

6b4e5b3

Add 'OptionsValidation' stuff.

c9e4bd4

Add possibility to configure options validation and perform validation at start up.

MaKCbIMKo changed the title ~~Add possibility to configure options with initializers in order to initialize options at the start up time (not at runtime).~~ Add possibility to configure options with validations in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). Mar 7, 2017

MaKCbIMKo changed the title ~~Add possibility to configure options with validations in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime).~~ Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). Mar 7, 2017

Remove 'Initializer' stuff.

10d34c3

HaoK reviewed Mar 7, 2017

View reviewed changes

MaKCbIMKo added 3 commits March 14, 2017 17:06

Fix .sln file

4807ec0

remove redundant rows.

Add 'OptionsFactory' interface and realization

5bc306d

OptionsCache class replaced with OptionsFactory. OptionsFactory is an additional injection point that might be used.

Modify validation logic.

4be1438

Add more flexibility of configuration and validation result handling.

MaKCbIMKo mentioned this pull request Mar 18, 2017

Options 2.0 - Add support for named options, validation, and caching #176

Closed

Clean up the code.

f12334c

MaKCbIMKo added 9 commits June 20, 2017 15:25

Temporary commit

0475ce5

Merge branch 'dev' of github.com:aspnet/Options into validation

9649454

Add possibility to track all registered options names.

efd2271

Add possibility to validate named options.

d947dd0

Add unit tests for validation.

Ignore .vscode folder.

9950bc4

Clear .sln file (remove configurations for removed project).

cbe5996

Clean up changes.

616106e

Restore removed property.

609b2ca

MaKCbIMKo mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2017

Add built in support for validating options #227

Closed

ghost removed the cla-signed label Nov 14, 2017

This was referenced Jan 1, 2018

Add built in support for validating options dotnet/aspnetcore#2388

Closed

Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). dotnet/aspnetcore#2392

Closed

aspnet locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 1, 2018

aspnet-hello closed this Jan 1, 2018

aspnet-hello reopened this Jan 2, 2018

aspnet unlocked this conversation Jan 2, 2018

natemcmaster changed the base branch from dev to master July 2, 2018 17:58

HaoK closed this Jul 31, 2018

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). #171

Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). #171

MaKCbIMKo commented Feb 20, 2017

dnfclas commented Feb 20, 2017

dnfclas commented Feb 20, 2017

HaoK Mar 7, 2017

MaKCbIMKo Mar 7, 2017

HaoK Mar 7, 2017

MaKCbIMKo Mar 7, 2017

HaoK Mar 8, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 7, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 14, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 14, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 16, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 16, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 16, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 16, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 29, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 29, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Jun 26, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Jul 18, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Jul 18, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Aug 25, 2017

HaoK commented Aug 25, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Aug 25, 2017

HaoK commented Aug 25, 2017

aspnet-hello commented Jan 1, 2018

aspnet-hello commented Jan 2, 2018

HaoK commented Jul 31, 2018

Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). #171

Add possibility to configure options validation in order to validate options at the start up time (not at runtime). #171

Conversation

MaKCbIMKo commented Feb 20, 2017

dnfclas commented Feb 20, 2017

dnfclas commented Feb 20, 2017

HaoK Mar 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MaKCbIMKo Mar 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

HaoK Mar 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

MaKCbIMKo Mar 7, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

HaoK Mar 8, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

HaoK commented Mar 7, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 14, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 14, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 16, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 16, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 16, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 16, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Mar 29, 2017

HaoK commented Mar 29, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Jun 26, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Jul 18, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Jul 18, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Aug 25, 2017

HaoK commented Aug 25, 2017

MaKCbIMKo commented Aug 25, 2017

HaoK commented Aug 25, 2017

aspnet-hello commented Jan 1, 2018

aspnet-hello commented Jan 2, 2018

HaoK commented Jul 31, 2018