inversionofcontrol.co.uk Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the inversionofcontrol.co.uk

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host inversionofcontrol.co.uk. Currently, hosted in United Kingdom and its service provider is M247 Ltd .

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called cloudflare containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

happy adventures in code unit testing finalizers in c# april 1, 2018 | tags: c# , disposable , finalizer | comments finalizers are generally non-deterministic. if you leave the gc to its job, it will finalize eligible objects at some point . this doesn't work very well for us if we are needing to test that our disposable types are behaving. let's look at a base type i provide as part of my framework; the disposablebase . this type provides a base implementation of disposable operations. any time i need to implement something as disposable, i inherit from this type. here's what it looks like: public abstract class disposablebase : idisposable { public bool disposed { get; private set; } public void dispose() => dispose(true); protected void dispose(bool disposing) { if (!disposed) { disposed = true; if (disposing) { disposeexplicit(); } disposeimplicit(); gc.supressfinalize(this); } } protected virtual disposeexplicit() { } protected virtual disposeimplicit() { } ~disposablebase() { dispose(false); } } my implementation covers a couple of scenarios - implicit and explicit disposal. explicit disposal occurs when i make calls to .dispose() - either directly, or through a using statement: using (new somethingthatinheritsdisposablebase()) { } i've named this explicit, because for it to trigger, users have to explicity call this. one the other hand, the implicit disposal can occur either through explicit disposal, or through object finalization. given that i have an implementation, i now need to write tests to ensure it behaves the way i expect it to. easy for explicit disposal, it is deterministic - i call it and then check the postconditions. let's have a look at a test type and a simple test, using xunit as my test framework of choice: class disposable : disposablebase { private action _onexplicitdispose; private action _onimplicitdispose; public disposable(action onexplicitdispose, action onimplicitdispose) { _onexplicitdispose = onexplicitdispose; _onimplicitdispose = onimplicitdispose; } protected override void disposeexplicit() => _onexplicitdispose?.dynamicinvoke(); protected override void disposeimplicit() => _onimplicitdispose?.dynamicinvoke(); } [fact] public void dispose_callsexplicitandimplicitdisposal() { // arrange bool @explicit = false; bool @implicit = false; var disposable = new disposable( onexplicitdispose: () => @explicit = true, onimplicitdispose: () => @implicit = true); // act disposable.dispose(); // assert assert.true(@explicit); assert.true(@implicit); } nice and simple, i can check to make sure my dispose method is doing what i expect. but, if i try the same for a finalizer, how do i actually trigger it? the gc will not finalize objects if the reference can be obtained by walking other reference graphs, or the object itself is rooted. a reference is considered a root in the following conditions: a local variable in the currently running method, or static references check out this great article on further details about the gc process itself. so given the above restrictions, how do we make a finalizer deterministic? the secret is a combination of weakreference[<t>] , delegated execution of your test action, and blocked execution until the finalizers have executed: [fact] public void dispose_callsimplicitonlyonfinalization() { // arrange bool @explicit = false; bool @implicit = false; weakreference<disposable> weak = null; action dispose = () => { // this will go out of scope after dispose() is executed var disposable = new disposable( onexplicitdispose: () => @explicit = true, onimplicitdispose: () => @implicit = true); weak = new weakreference<disposable>(disposable, true); }; // act dispose(); gc.collect(0, gccollectionmode.forced); gc.waitforpendingfinalizers(); // assert assert.false(@explicit); // not called through finalizer assert.true(@implicit); } let's look at what is going on here in detail: weakreference<disposable> weak = null; - we can't initialize the weak reference until we've created our disposable - which we don't want to do in the current scope action dispose = () => ... - we create a delegate we can execute later in the test weak = new weakreference<disposable>(disposable, true); - create our weak reference, rooted in the outer scope, and passing true to the second argument will allow it to continue tracking the object after finalization dispose(); - execute our test action gc.collect(0, gccollectionmode.forced); - force the gc to collect at this point. given we havent gc'd at this point before and our references are heap allocated, this means they exist in generation 0 gc.waitforpendingfinalizers(); - block until the gc has finished processing the finalizer queue for collected objects with this general pattern of weak references, delegated actions, gc collection and finalization, we can test our finalizer code deterministically. asp.net core 2.0 - thinking about the future may 12, 2017 | tags: aspnet , aspnet-core , netcore , netfx , netstandard | comments it has been an eventful week in asp.net core land. it started with the discovery by community member and asp.net core contributor kévin chalet that a pr was being merged into the release branch of asp.net core 2.0 preview 1, rel/2.0.0-preview1 . it was a significant pr in that it was changing the target framework monikers (tfms) which denote compile targets. in this pr, the previous tfms of netstandard1.x and net4x were changed to netcoreapp2.0 . if this was being merged into a non-release branch, the community probably wouldn't have baulked, but in a release branch, this signals intent to change. this means one thing in broad strokes: asp.net core 2.0 was dropping support for .net framework ( netfx ), in favour of specifically targeting .net core ( netcore ) 2.0 this seemingly came out of nowhere community-wise (i'm pretty sure it would have been discussed extensively internally). why would a message of compatibility that was sold to us with the release of asp.net core 1.0, a message that ensured you could use the latest technology stack on both the stable and mature .net framework, and the fast-moving .net core, why would that message now change. naturally, the community as a whole was divided, some in favour, some completely objecting. let's try and take an objective look at the pros and cons of this change. for moving to .net core 2.0 only the primary motivation as i understand of this change was around how quickly asp.net core can move when we were promising support for .net standard compatability. .net standard was introduced to simplify compatability between libraries and platforms. please refer to this blog post as a refresher. the idea is that we could take the .net framework, .net core, mono and other implementations of a 'standard', and provide a meta library (the .net standard library) that provided a consistent api surface that you could target across all runtimes. different versions of each runtime could provide support for a version of .net standard. for instance, if i target netstandard1.4 i know my library should work on .net core 1.0 (as it supports up to .net standard 1.6), .net framework >= 4.6.1 and also uwp 10.0. this was great because .net standard ensures api compatibility for me, meaning i worry less about #if specific code to cater for specific build platforms. .net standard is a promise. but one thing that potentially wasn't considered when promising .net standard compatibility for asp.net core and ensuring asp.net core could run on both .net framework and .net core was that they both move at different speeds. so how can we take advantages of the new apis in .net core (which would eventually be ported to .net framework, and defined in .net standard), when .net framework has a completely different release cadence? remembering that .net framework changes happen slowly, because they need to be tested to ensure support across the billions of devices that currently run the .

URL analysis for inversionofcontrol.co.uk

https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/tag/netfx/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/asp-net-core-1-0-routing-under-the-hood/#disqus_thread
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/tag/finalizer/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/tag/aspnet-core/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/tag/netcore/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/asp-net-core-1-0-routing-under-the-hood/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/asp-net-core-2-0-thinking-about-the-future/#disqus_thread
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/page/2/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/unit-testing-finalizers-in-csharp/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/tag/aspnet/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/rss/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/smarter-build-scripts-with-msbuild-and-net-core/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/smarter-build-scripts-with-msbuild-and-net-core/#disqus_thread
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/asp-net-core-2-0-thinking-about-the-future/
https://www.inversionofcontrol.co.uk/tag/dotnet/

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain name:
inversionofcontrol.co.uk

Registrant:
Matthew Abbott

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
4 Gordon Road
Worthing
West Sussex
BN11 1DB
United Kingdom

Data validation:
Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on 13-Jul-2015

Registrar:
Mr Paul Woodland t/a PW New Media [Tag = PWNEWMEDIA]
URL: http://www.pwnewmedia.com

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 13-Jul-2015
Expiry date: 13-Jul-2018
Last updated: 14-Jul-2017

Registration status:
Registered until expiry date.

Name servers:
ns1.liquidsix.com
ns2.liquidsix.com
ns3.liquidsix.com
ns4.liquidsix.com

WHOIS lookup made at 04:42:08 16-Jan-2018

--
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:

Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2018.

You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REFERRER http://www.nominet.org.uk

  REGISTRAR Nominet UK

SERVERS

  SERVER co.uk.whois-servers.net

  ARGS inversionofcontrol.co.uk

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

OWNER

  ORGANIZATION Matthew Abbott

TYPE
UK Individual

ADDRESS
4 Gordon Road
Worthing
West Sussex
BN11 1DB
United Kingdom
Data validation:
Nominet was able to match the registrant's name and address against a 3rd party data source on 13-Jul-2015

DOMAIN

  SPONSOR Mr Paul Woodland t/a PW New Media [Tag = PWNEWMEDIA]

  CREATED 2015-07-13

  CHANGED 2017-07-14

STATUS
Registered until expiry date.

NSERVER

  NS1.LIQUIDSIX.COM 89.238.162.106

  NS2.LIQUIDSIX.COM 78.129.199.15

  NS3.LIQUIDSIX.COM 69.162.65.58

  NS4.LIQUIDSIX.COM 63.143.57.62

  NAME inversionofcontrol.co.uk

DISCLAIMER
This WHOIS information is provided for free by Nominet UK the central registry
for .uk domain names. This information and the .uk WHOIS are:
Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2018.
You may not access the .uk WHOIS or use any data from it except as permitted
by the terms of use available in full at http://www.nominet.uk/whoisterms,
which includes restrictions on: (A) use of the data for advertising, or its
repackaging, recompilation, redistribution or reuse (B) obscuring, removing
or hiding any or all of this notice and (C) exceeding query rate or volume
limits. The data is provided on an 'as-is' basis and may lag behind the
register. Access may be withdrawn or restricted at any time.

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .