Skip to content

Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050

Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged

Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

Conversation

@tarekgh

@tarekghtarekgh commented Jan 23, 2023•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

#79766

Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.

@ghostghost assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost

ghost commented Jan 23, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

#79766

When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.
The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.

Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:

area-Extensions-Configuration

Milestone:-

@tarekgh
tarekgh requested a review from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh added this to the 8.0.0 milestone Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh

tarekgh commented Jan 23, 2023•
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia

halter73
halter73 reviewed Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes

@halter73halter73 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.

It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.

I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.

If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs Outdated
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs Outdated
@tarekgh

tarekgh commented Jan 24, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!

halter73
halter73 approved these changes Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs Outdated
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs Outdated
@tarekghtarekgh mentioned this pull request Jan 25, 2023
Closed
@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot mentioned this pull request Jan 26, 2023
Closed
@tarekgh
tarekgh merged commit 144dbcb into dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh deleted the FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects branch January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh

tarekgh commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

/backport to release/7.0

@github-actions

github-actionsBot commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056

@github-actions

github-actionsBot commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:

$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128

Please backport manually!

@github-actions

github-actionsBot commented Jan 26, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!

Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.

@tarekghtarekgh mentioned this pull request Jan 27, 2023
Merged
eerhardt
eerhardt reviewed Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
}

// for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can

@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?

@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.

@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
}
}

return;

@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;

@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:

boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;

@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
{
foreach (object? item in orig)
dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);

@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. 

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);

@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;

@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?

@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
MemberAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.

@tarekghtarekgh mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2023
Merged
@ghostghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects

None yet

Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects by tarekgh · Pull Request #81050 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects - #81050
Merged
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Jan 26, 2023
Merged
Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects#81050
tarekgh merged 9 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom 
tarekgh:FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects
Conversation
@tarekgh
@tarekghtarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
#79766
Un-mutate the settable collection instances during the binding.
@ghostghost
assigned tarekghJan 23, 2023
@ghost
ghost
commented
Jan 23, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-extensions-configuration

See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.
Issue Details
#79766
When binding read-only collection interface against instantiated object, we shouldn't mutate this object or replace it with another created object. The reason is we cannot create a new collection instance behaving exactly as the instantiated one. For example, users can create a collection (e.g. Set) with specific string comparer behavior.

The change here is to revert to the .NET 6.0 behavior.
Author:tarekgh
Assignees:-
Labels:
area-Extensions-Configuration
Milestone:-
@tarekgh
tarekgh
requested a review
from eerhardtJanuary 23, 2023 21:23
@tarekghtarekgh
added this to the 8.0.0 milestone
Jan 23, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 23, 2023•

edited

Loading

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
CC @ericstj@SteveDunn@michasHL@layomia
halter73
halter73
reviewed
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
@halter73halter73
left a comment


Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This makes the issue described in #79766 worse when the collection type is immutable. If MySet was declared as an IReadOnlySet instead of an ISet, even the "// workaround" would break after this change, since the set will now contain no items after binding.
It's one thing to skip over unsettable collections, but completely skipping over settable collections that we would otherwise set if the initial value was null is going too far in my opinion. I know that this is the pre-7.0 behavior for IEnumerable, but this old behavior was reported as a bug by several customers in #36390. If you actually wanted the binder to skip over the property, you could remove the public setter.
I think the more targeted fix would be to prefer mutating the existing instance if it's declared as a mutable collection type like we did in .NET 6. This should be enough to fix the regression demonstrated in #79766 and be relatively safe to backport.
If we feel strongly that overwriting a non-null, immutable collection is too surprising because it could lose customizations from the original instance, we could throw instead of skip. The exception message could suggest removing the public setter in the unlikely case that the developer really did want to skip binding the collection. That wouldn't be a good candidate for backporting of course.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 24, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
@halter73 I have scoped the fix to settable collections only if you want to take a second look. Thanks!
halter73
halter73
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
Outdated

@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 25, 2023
 Closed

@build-analysisbuild-analysisBot
mentioned this pull request
Jan 26, 2023

Closed

@tarekgh
tarekgh
merged commit 144dbcb
into
dotnet:mainJan 26, 2023
@tarekgh
tarekgh
deleted the

FixConfigurationBindingWithInstantiatedObjects

branch
January 26, 2023 20:50
@tarekgh
tarekgh
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
/backport to release/7.0
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Started backporting to release/7.0: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/actions/runs/4020016056
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh backporting to release/7.0 failed, the patch most likely resulted in conflicts:
$ git am --3way --ignore-whitespace --keep-non-patch changes.patch
Applying: Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
Using index info to reconstruct a base tree...
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
M	src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Falling back to patching base and 3-way merge...
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
Auto-merging src/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
error: Failed to merge in the changes.
hint: Use 'git am --show-current-patch=diff' to see the failed patch
Patch failed at 0001 Fix Configuration Binding with Instantiated Objects
When you have resolved this problem, run "git am --continue".
If you prefer to skip this patch, run "git am --skip" instead.
To restore the original branch and stop patching, run "git am --abort".
Error: The process '/usr/bin/git' failed with exit code 128
Please backport manually!
@github-actions
github-actionsBot
commented
Jan 26, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
@tarekgh an error occurred while backporting to release/7.0, please check the run log for details!
Error: git am failed, most likely due to a merge conflict.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 27, 2023
 Merged

eerhardt
eerhardt
reviewed
Jan 30, 2023
View reviewed changes
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
@@ -315,12 +315,15 @@ private static void BindInstance(
 }

 // for sets and read-only set interfaces, we clone what's there into a new collection, if we can
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this comment now incorrect?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to remove the word sets from the comment.
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the comment needs to be beefed up a bit to describe the whole behavior.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 }
 }

 return;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why isn't the if (TypeIsADictionaryInterface(type) section below symmetrical with the above if (TypeIsASetInterface(type)? It feels wrong that these two checks are different.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 Type elementType = type.GetGenericArguments()[0];

Type keyType = type.GenericTypeArguments[0];
bool keyTypeIsEnum = elementType.IsEnum;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

keyType is no longer used. Should this be changed to:
boolelementTypeIsEnum=elementType.IsEnum;
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/src/ConfigurationBinder.cs
 {
 foreach (object? item in orig)
 dictionaryType = typeof(Dictionary<,>).MakeGenericType(keyType, valueType);
 var dictionary = Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

object?dictionary=Activator.CreateInstance(dictionaryType);
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, make sense.
Comment threadsrc/libraries/Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder/tests/ConfigurationBinderTests.cs
 var config = configurationBuilder.Build();

 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>()!;
 var options = config.Get<ComplexOptions>(o => o.ErrorOnUnknownConfiguration = true)!;
@eerhardteerhardtJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What was this change for?
@tarekghtarekghJan 30, 2023

Copy link


Copy Markdown

MemberAuthor
Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this to get the exception thrown instead of skipping the configuration. Just to help in the case of the test failure.
@tarekghtarekgh
mentioned this pull request
Jan 30, 2023
 Merged

@ghostghost
locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators
Mar 1, 2023
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.


Reviewers

@eerhardteerhardteerhardt left review comments
@halter73halter73halter73 approved these changes

Assignees

@tarekghtarekgh

Labels

area-Extensions-Configuration

Projects


None yet


Milestone

8.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@tarekgh@halter73@eerhardt