If you are building REST API via HTTP, your status codes should assist clients on choosing what to do next, even before the client read the response body or headers.
Below are some conventions that I found useful for my own project.
Read MoreAuthor: nguyenquyhy
React & ASP.NET Core
Update 08 Sep 2019: since Microsoft has officially announce the deprecation of aspnet-webpack package in .NET Core 3.0, you might not want to use the code in this blog post directly in production. However, you might still be able to learn a thing or two from it. I will write a new blog post on restoring all the following feature on the new React template in Visual Studio.
React is getting very popular for building rich web interface, and is one of the supported project template in ASP.NET Core. In .NET Core, you can quickly create a new React project by running the command (or using the new project dialog):
|
1 |
dotnet new react |
The template immediately gives you a working project with both React and ASP.NET Core. However, I don’t feel very happy with the latest template in .NET Core 2.2 and 3.0, so I created a new one based on the template from older version of .NET Core for my own projects.
Read MoreWhat I’ve learned moving from Azure WebJobs to Azure Function Apps
Updated: some previous of the content in this post is no longer applicable when you upgrade Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Functions to version 1.0.26, so I have added some notes and sections on that.
If you have been using Azure for some times, you might know about Azure WebJob, a great way to run your code in background on triggers and integrate with other services via bindings. Recently, Azure introduced a similar offering: Azure Function App. Function App is based on a very similar idea, where you can run your code in any supporting languages on certain triggers such as a Queue message or a HTTP request or a timer.
We have been using Azure WebJob for a couple of years to process our email/push notifications and to clean up of our database. WebJob served that purpose perfectly until our app growth reveals a big limitation: WebJob consumes all the resource of the web app itself. In theory, WebJob should be a separate background process and should not interfere with the web app. However, since it is inside the App Service, it utilizes the same CPU/Memory consumption constraint of the App Service Plan. We started getting downtime alert from our APIs because the WebJob is running too heavily, defeating the purpose of splitting up some processing to a separate process in the first place.
We look around for solutions. First of all, we tried scaling out the app service plan based on CPU and memory consumption. However, it was hard to set a proper rule to scale up and down, and the cost multiplied quite quickly. We started looking at moving to Azure Function App with consumption plan. On paper it looks great because we can completely separate our background processing and our API. We also does not have to waste computing resources for the WebJob dashboard as telemetry is now sent to Application Insights instead of Azure Storage (I heard the WebJob dashboard consumed App Service Plan’s CPU to perform certain indexing).
Unfortunately, the migration was not as smooth as we thought. We soon met many problems with our C# implementation:
- If you are using Timer trigger in Function with consumption plan, remember that you have to use the CRON schedule format (0 0 */8 * * *), not the Timer format (08:00:00).
- (This is no longer applied for Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Functions 1.0.26) Using QueueTrigger, you’ll get an amazingly cryptic error message on Azure Dashboard: The binding type(s) ‘queueTrigger’ are not registered. Please ensure the type is correct and the binding extension is installed. Visual Studio generated a functions.json with binding queueTrigger and can be seen on the Azure portal. We also added queues section to host.json file. We have also installed Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Extensions.Storage to enable QueueTrigger in code. So what did we miss here? Turn out you have to add
Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Script.ExtensionsMetadataGenerator nuget package as well, so that Visual Studio will generate extensions.json. This is not mentioned anywhere in the docs but only a small page on GitHub, which is very irritating. - If you are using Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Functions 1.0.26 and are using the above workaround, extensions.json might not be generated in the correct place, and you would suddenly get the same issue with unregistered binding types again when testing locally. You can try to remove Microsoft.Azure.WebJobs.Script.ExtensionsMetadataGenerator and let the SDK handle the json generation.
- ILogger is supported by the new WebJob SDK since the migration to .NET Core and also by Function SDK v2, which is great since our Functions can finally share code with ASP.NET Core. Unfortunately, you might get error “Cannot bind parameter ‘log’ to type ILogger. Make sure the parameter Type is supported by the binding.” Turn out you need to use the exact version of ILogger in the SDK (e.g. SDK 1.0.19 uses 2.1.0) (stackoverflow), which would be a big problem if one of the dependencies updates to higher versions.
There are also several limitations that is probably due to Function App being a quite young platform in Azure:
- It seems that Function is actually based on WebJob behind the scene, so the features set of Function SDK in C# is only a subset of that of WebJob:
- (This is no longer applied for Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Functions 1.0.26) WebJob recently moved to .NET Standard and get the extremely convenient dependency injection. Meanwhile, there is no DI story in Function. This might be ok with small function, but ours get a lot of logic and we would like to have DI to get proper tests.
- If you are using Microsoft.NET.Sdk.Functions 1.0.26, you can check out this blog post on the new DI support https://platform.deloitte.com.au/articles/performing-constructor-injections-on-azure-functions-v2.
- A small extra note: if previously you have been using SetBasePath(context.FunctionAppDirectory) to read configuration in local.settings.json. You can now use SetBasePath(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory()) in your startup class.
- The current dashboard experience in Azure portal lacks the ability to replay the execution. This is not really critical for applications that have already been in production for a while as you should already have some retry mechanisms. However, it is quite convenient for development and small testing. Hopefully this will come soon in the future.
If you have any better solutions for those problems, please feel free to let me know in the comments.
Azure Notification Hub SDK on .NET Standard and WNS Raw notification
Update (3 Oct 2018): Thanks to the beloved-by-community Jon Galloway, I can finally connect with the engineers working on the library. Hopefully, the team can push out a fix soon.
Update (13 Oct 2018): Microsoft team has quickly release version 2.0.1 with proper fix for the issue. Bravo for the team!
I have been using Azure Notification Hub for a very long time to send push notifications to my UWP apps on Windows 10. Since the introduction of .NET Core 1.0, I have gradually been moving my projects from .NET Framework to .NET Core. However, Microsoft.Azure.NotificationHubs was always the blockers due to the lack of support for .NET Standard.
Tl;dr version:
- 2.0.0-preview1 and preview2 have issue sending WNS Raw message.
- After 8 months, 2.0.0 was released with the same issue.
- There was no place to report the issue.
- There was no source code.
- The fix is only 1 LOC, but I spent much more time to make the decompiled code compile back.
- And now I have still no way to report the issue nor contribute the fix.
The curious case of missing Authorization header
I have been wasting time on a small issue adding Authorization header into HttpClient.
The code was plain and simple:
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
using (var httpClient = new HttpClient { DefaultRequestHeaders = { Authorization = new AuthenticationHeaderValue("Basic", Convert.ToBase64String(Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(username + ":" + password))) }) { var response = await httpClient.GetAsync(url); } |
Specifically, I was writing a .NET Core console app, following this wiki page https://github.com/projectkudu/kudu/wiki/Accessing-the-kudu-service and trying to access http://mysite.scm.azurewebsites.net/basicauth. However, I kept getting 401 Unauthorize response and response.RequestMessage.Headers was completely empty.
After having spent some time searching for solution on the Internet but to no avail, I opened Fiddler to see the actual HTTP requests. Turns out, this was what happened behind the scene:
There were actually 2 requests. The first one has the Authorization header and returns a 302 Found. Automatic redirection of HttpClient triggers the second request, and this one didn’t have any Authorization header.
Normally I can just stop there, accept that how things work in .NET and find a workaround. But since .NET Core is open source on GitHub, I decided to dig a bit deeper to understand the reason of this implementation. A quick search about redirection on the corefx repo in GitHub gave me the exact commit that I need: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/commit/e8a17715fba4ba6cfce4043a2cd117474dfcee05. And voila, I could see the line in RedirectHandler.cs that causing the issue:
|
1 |
request.Headers.Authorization = null; |
and I could also see the reason in SocketsHttpHandler.cs:
|
1 2 3 |
// Just as with WinHttpHandler and CurlHandler, for security reasons, we do not support authentication on redirects // if the credential is anything other than a CredentialCache. // We allow credentials in a CredentialCache since they are specifically tied to URIs. |
I finally solved my curious case, and I hope this post is useful to you. Feel free to leave me a comment and let me know if you have any suggestion on securely implement the redirection with Authorization header.