I'm using ML.NET in an ASP.NET Core application, and I am using the following code in Startup:
var builder = services.AddPredictionEnginePool<Foo, Bar>();
if (File.Exists("model.zip"))
{
builder.FromFile(String.Empty, "model.zip", true);
}
If model.zip doesn't exist, I create it later in the middleware. How do I add it to the PredictionEnginePool that is injected?
There are no options to load a model via PredictionEnginePool, and instantiating or injecting a PredictionEnginePoolBuilder isn't an option as it requires IServiceCollection (so must be configured during Startup.ConfigureServices).
The only option I can see at the moment is to set a flag if the file doesn't exist at startup, and then restart the service after model.zip is created in the middleware later on (using IApplicationLifetime.StopApplication), but I really don't like this as an option.
PredictionEnginePool is designed in such a way that you can write your own ModelLoader implementation. Out of the box, Microsoft.Extensions.ML has 2 loaders, File and Uri. When those don't meet your needs, you can drop down and write your own.
See https://github.com/dotnet/machinelearning-samples/pull/560 which changes one of the dotnet/machine-learning samples to use an "in-memory" model loader, it doesn't get the model from a file or a Uri. You can follow the same pattern and write whatever code you need to get your model.
public class InMemoryModelLoader : ModelLoader
{
private readonly ITransformer _model;
public InMemoryModelLoader(ITransformer model)
{
_model = model;
}
public override ITransformer GetModel() => _model;
public override IChangeToken GetReloadToken() =>
// This IChangeToken will never notify a change.
new CancellationChangeToken(CancellationToken.None);
}
And then in Startup.cs
services.AddPredictionEnginePool<ImageInputData, ImageLabelPredictions>();
services.AddOptions<PredictionEnginePoolOptions<ImageInputData, ImageLabelPredictions>>()
.Configure(options =>
{
options.ModelLoader = new InMemoryModelLoader(_mlnetModel);
});
Related
I cannot find any suitable example on how to inject an app.context object into a Loopback 4 controller being in a separate file
This inline example from the documentation works fine
import {inject} from '#loopback/context';
import {Application} from '#loopback/core';
const app = new Application();
app.bind('defaultName').to('John');
export class HelloController {
constructor(#inject('defaultName') private name: string) {}
greet(name?: string) {
return `Hello ${name || this.name}`;
}
}
but I cannot find a way to obtain the same having my controller in a separate file.
I am trying to do something like this:
export class PingController {
constructor(#inject(app.name) private name: string)
app.name being a simple binding in my app-context.
Solution was quite simple.
Since all context values on app level is available throughout the application, no reference to app is required.
I just needed to replace (app.name) with ('name') in the constructor injection.
Is it possible to have more than one custom user profile and if it is how to set up web config file and how to manage custom profiles for two website under the same sitecore instance (same VS solution)?
We had one custom user profile and new requirement came about new website under the same sitecore instance but with the new custom user for the second website.
During development of second website we created second custom user profile and everything went fine, we change "inherits" attribute of system.web/profile node in the web.config file to point to second custom use profile and during development it was OK.
The problem now is that only one user profile can log in to the webistes:
if we set inherits attribute to "Namespace.Website.NamespaceA.CustomProfileA, Namespace.Website" only profileA will be able to log in to their domain and if we set it to "Namespace.Website.NamespaceB.CustomProfileB, Namespace.Website" only profileB will be able to login to its domain because the switcher will use this one.
All articles in the web describe how to set custom user profile, switcher and switchingProviders for just one custom user profile but there are no examples for my case.
Thanks,
Srdjan
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clean way to have multiple user profile classes created for you by the API. Typically, you will get the user profile via Sitecore.Context.User.Profile. The Context class is static and the methods that initialize the Profile property are private, so there's nowhere to insert your extra logic.
You could, however, create wrapper classes for the Profile. Start with a base class like this:
public abstract class CustomProfileBase
{
public CustomProfileBase(Sitecore.Security.UserProfile innerProfile)
{
Assert.ArgumentNotNull(innerProfile, nameof(innerProfile));
InnerProfile = innerProfile;
}
public Sitecore.Security.UserProfile InnerProfile { get; protected set; }
public virtual string GetCustomProperty(string propertyName)
{
return InnerProfile.GetCustomProperty(propertyName);
}
public virtual void SetCustomProperty(string propertyName, string value)
{
InnerProfile.SetCustomProperty(propertyName, value);
}
public virtual void Save()
{
InnerProfile.Save();
}
public virtual string Email
{
get { return InnerProfile.Email; }
set { InnerProfile.Email = value; }
}
// Other members omitted for brevity
}
This CustomProfileBase class would have a member that wraps each of the public members of Sitecore.Security.UserProfile. Then, you would create your site specific profile like this:
public class SiteOneProfile : CustomProfileBase
{
public SiteOneProfile(UserProfile innerProfile) : base(innerProfile)
{
}
public string CustomPropertyOne
{
get { return GetCustomProperty("CustomPropertyOne"); }
set { SetCustomProperty("CustomPropertyOne", value); }
}
}
Then you would use it from a controller or elsewhere like so:
var profile = new SiteOneProfile(Sitecore.Context.User.Profile);
model.property = profile.CustomPropertyOne;
Update
When using this approach, you would just leave the inherits attribute in the config with its default value. Also, the profile should not have an effect on the ability to login. If you are still having issues with that, please update your question with details of the error you get when logging in.
I've created and deployed a plugin for the Update event of a custom entity but it seems when multiple users update different entities within quick succession the plugin uses the first entity it receives for each call.
To investigate further I added NLog via NuGet and at the beginning of the Execute function I generate a Guid and log the entity Id and the Guid. When I look in the log I can see the same ID and Guid logged 3-4 times before both change.
What I think is happening is the code is being run for each user but using the first entities details, applying only to the first entity.
Why is this happening and how can I stop it? The problem is users are saying the plugin is erratic.
Here is my code:
public class OnUpdateClaimSection : IPlugin
{
private static Logger logger = LogManager.GetCurrentClassLogger();
private string logId = Guid.NewGuid().ToString();
public void Execute(IServiceProvider serviceProvider)
{
try
{
IPluginExecutionContext context = (IPluginExecutionContext)serviceProvider.GetService(typeof(IPluginExecutionContext));
IOrganizationServiceFactory serviceFactory = (IOrganizationServiceFactory)serviceProvider.GetService(typeof(IOrganizationServiceFactory));
IOrganizationService service = serviceFactory.CreateOrganizationService(context.UserId);
if (context.InputParameters.Contains("Target") && context.InputParameters["Target"] is Entity)
{
logger.Debug("{0} {1}|{2}|{3}", logId, context.MessageName, context.PrimaryEntityName, Common.GetSystemUserFullName(service, context.UserId));
var entity = context.InputParameters["Target"] as Entity;
logger.Debug("{0} {1}", logId, entity.Id);
var claimSection = GetClaimSection(service, entity.ToEntity<ClaimSection>());
CalculateClaimTotals(service, claimSection);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
logger.Error("{0} Exception : {1}", logId, ex.Message);
throw;
}
}
}
Plugin classes are instantiated once by the CRM platform and are then reused for requests. Therefore you must be very careful when using class field variables, because they are not guaranteed to be thread-safe.
In your example field logId is modified in the Execute method. Race conditions of multiple threads are causing the effects you describe.
I suggest to only use plugin class fields when you have made sure that their implementation is absolutely thread-safe.
How can I in Laravel 5 make global variable which will be available in all Blade templates?
Option 1:
You can use view::share() like so:
<?php namespace App\Http\Controllers;
use View;
//You can create a BaseController:
class BaseController extends Controller {
public $variable1 = "I am Data";
public function __construct() {
$variable2 = "I am Data 2";
View::share ( 'variable1', $this->variable1 );
View::share ( 'variable2', $variable2 );
View::share ( 'variable3', 'I am Data 3' );
View::share ( 'variable4', ['name'=>'Franky','address'=>'Mars'] );
}
}
class HomeController extends BaseController {
//if you have a constructor in other controllers you need call constructor of parent controller (i.e. BaseController) like so:
public function __construct(){
parent::__construct();
}
public function Index(){
//All variable will be available in views
return view('home');
}
}
Option 2:
Use a composer:
Create a composer file at app\Composers\HomeComposer.php
NB: create app\Composers if it does not exists
<?php namespace App\Composers;
class HomeComposer
{
public function compose($view)
{
//Add your variables
$view->with('variable1', 'I am Data')
->with('variable2', 'I am Data 2');
}
}
Then you can attached the composer to any view by doing this
<?php namespace App\Http\Controllers;
use View;
class HomeController extends Controller{
public function __construct(){
View::composers([
'App\Composers\HomeComposer' => ['home'] //attaches HomeComposer to home.blade.php
]);
}
public function Index(){
return view('home');
}
}
Option 3:
Add Composer to a Service Provider, In Laravel 5 I prefer having my composer in App\Providers\ViewServiceProvider
Create a composer file at app\Composers\HomeComposer.php
Add HomeComposer to App\Providers\ViewServiceProvider
<?php
namespace App\Providers;
use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;
use View;
use App\Composers\HomeComposer;
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Blade;
class ViewServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider
{
/**
* Register any application services.
*
* #return void
*/
public function register()
{
//
}
/**
* Bootstrap any application services.
*
* #return void
*/
public function boot()
{
//add to all views
view()->composer('*', HomeComposer::class);
//add to only home view
//view()->composer('home', HomeComposer::class);
}
}
Create a new Service Provider as suggested in here
Add your new Service Provider to the configuration file (config/app.php).
In the boot method of your new Service Provider use:
View::share( 'something_cool', 'this is a cool shared variable' );
Now you are ready to use $something_cool in all of your views.
Hope this helps.
Searching for solution of the same problem and found the best solution in Laravel documentation. Just use View::share in AppServiceProvider like this:
View::share('key', 'value');
Details here.
You can do this with view composers. View composers are executed when a template is loaded. You can pass in a Closure with additional functionality for that view. With view composers you can use wildcards. To make a view composer for every view just use a *.
View::composer('*', function($view)
{
$view->with('variable','Test value');
});
You can also do this without a closure as you can see in the docs.
View::composer('*', 'App\Http\ViewComposers\ProfileComposer');
The profile composer class must have a compose method.
View composers are executed when a view is rendered. Laravel has also view creators. These are executed when a view is instantiated.
You can also choose to use a BaseController with a setupLayout method. Then every view which you will load is loaded through the setupLayout method which adds some additional data. However, by using view composers you're pretty sure that the code is executed. But with the BaseController approach you've more flexibility because you can skip the loading of the extra data.
EDIT: As mentioned by Nic Gutierrez you can also use view share.
Also, you can do this in the Route.php file:
view()->share('variableName', $variable);
I would rather use middleware with the view() facade helper. (Laravel 5.x)
Middleware is easier to mantain and does not make a mess in the controllers class tree.
Steps
Create the Middleware
/app/Http/Middleware/TimezoneReset.php
To create a middleware you can run php artisan make:middleware GlobalTimeConfig
share() the data you need shared
<?php
namespace App\Http\Middleware;
use Closure;
class GlobalTimeConfig
{
/**
* Handle an incoming request.
*
* #param \Illuminate\Http\Request $request
* #param \Closure $next
* #return mixed
*/
public function handle($request, Closure $next)
{
$time_settings = [
'company_timezone' => 'UTC',
'company_date_format' => 'Y-m-d H:i:s',
'display_time' => true,
];
view()->share('time_settings', $time_settings);
return $next($request);
}
}
Register the newly created middleware
Add the middleware to your middleware route group as per example below
/app/Http/Kernel.php
protected $middlewareGroups = [
'web' => [
\App\Http\Middleware\GlobalTimeConfig::class,
\App\Http\Middleware\EncryptCookies::class,
\Illuminate\Cookie\Middleware\AddQueuedCookiesToResponse::class,
\Illuminate\Session\Middleware\StartSession::class,
// \Illuminate\Session\Middleware\AuthenticateSession::class,
\Illuminate\View\Middleware\ShareErrorsFromSession::class,
\App\Http\Middleware\VerifyCsrfToken::class,
\Illuminate\Routing\Middleware\SubstituteBindings::class,
],
'api' => [
'throttle:60,1',
'bindings',
],
];
Access data from templates
Access the data from any template with the given key in the View::share() method call
eg.:
Company timezone: {{ $time_settings['company_timezone'] }}
EDIT:
Nic Gutierrez's Service Provider answer might be a better (or the best) solution.
and you can give array not just View::share('key', 'value');
can put array like View::share(['key'=>'value','key'=>'value'])
You can add in Controller.php file:
use App\Category;
And then:
class Controller extends BaseController {
public function __construct() {
$categories = Category::All();
\View::share('categories', $categories);
}
}
you can flash it into the session, you can define it in the .env file (static vars)
In Sitecore I'm trying to set up a way for our client to modify the robots.txt file from the content tree. I am attempting to set up a MVC controller action that is mappled to route "robots.txt" and will return the file contents. My controller looks like this:
public class SeoController : BaseController
{
private readonly IContentService _contentService;
private readonly IPageContext _pageContext;
private readonly IRenderingContext _renderingContext;
public SeoController(IContentService contentService, IPageContext pageContext, IRenderingContext renderingContext, ISitecoreContext glassContext)
: base(glassContext)
{
_contentService = contentService;
_pageContext = pageContext;
_renderingContext = renderingContext;
}
public FileContentResult Robots()
{
string content = string.Empty;
var contentResponse = _contentService.GetRobotsTxtContent();
if (contentResponse.Success && contentResponse.ContentItem != null)
{
content = contentResponse.ContentItem.RobotsText;
}
return File(Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(content), "text/plain");
}
}
And the route config:
public class RouteConfig
{
public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes)
{
routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}");
RouteTable.Routes.MapRoute("Robots.txt", "robots.txt", new { controller = "Seo", action = "Robots" });
}
}
This all works great if I use a route without the ".txt" extension. However after adding the extension I get a null reference exception in the domain layer due to the context database being null. Here's where the error happens:
public Item GetItem(string contentGuid)
{
return Sitecore.Context.Database.GetItem(contentGuid);
}
I'm assuming that there is a setting in sitecore that ignores the .txt extension. I've tried adding it as an allowed extension in the Sitecore.Pipelines.PreprocessRequest.FilterUrlExtensions setting of the config. Is there anything else I could be missing?
Ok, I found the issue. I was correct in assuming that txt needed to be added to the allowed extensions for the Sitecore.Pipelines.PreprocessRequest.FilterUrlExtensions setting. However robots.txt was listed under the IgnoreUrlPrefixes setting in the config file. That was causing sitecore to ignore that request. I removed it from that list and it's working great now.
This is a pure guess, but you might also have to add it to the allowed extensions of Sitecore.Pipelines.HttpRequest.FilterUrlExtensions in httpRequestBegin as well.