Activities of "alexander.nikonov"

To avoid compile errors, I had also to add providers: [SubscriptionService] to app.component.ts - hope it is a correct string. But anyway - closeAll() call did not help: i'm still getting the same 401 error on logout. It happens to any method which is obviously being loaded at the moment of logout. The methods are pretty typical:

//some component
this.fineDigitLoading = true;
this.fineDigitsService
  .getById(fineDigit.ordinanceId, fineDigit.number, fineDigit.subdivision, fineDigit.version)
  .pipe(
    finalize(() => (this.fineDigitLoading = false)),
    takeUntil(this.unsubscriber$)
  )
  .subscribe((state: FineDigits.FineDigit) => {
     ...
  });

//fineDigitsService
getById(
    ordinanceId: number,
    number: string,
    subdivision: string,
    version: number): Observable<FineDigits.FineDigit> {
    return this.restService.request<void, FineDigits.FineDigit>({
        method: 'GET',
        url: `/api/md/fine-digits/${ordinanceId}/${number}/${version}/${subdivision === null ? '' : subdivision}`,
    },
    { apiName: this.apiName });
}

//base class for any component
ngOnDestroy(): void {
    this.ngOnDestroyInner();
    this.unsubscriber$.next(null);
    this.unsubscriber$.complete();
}

Probably the latter approach is the reason? When the user is logging out - the current component is not being destroyed, so ngOnDestroy is not being triggered. If this is the case - please let me know the recommended approach to unsubscribe from all API calls by adjusting the code in base component class - adding 'logout' event handling which is now done in app.component.ts? Suprisingly I did not see any special handling for such scenario in ABP components...

UPDATE: I've added this to Base component constructor, but stil keep getting the same 401 errors:

this.oAuthService.events
  .pipe(filter(event => event?.type === 'logout'), takeUntil(this.unsubscriber$))
  .subscribe(() => {
    this.unsubscriber$.next(null);
    this.unsubscriber$.complete();
  });
  

The above part IS triggered after I click "Logout" link. But after this my server API calls are still made. How it's possible if I use takeUntil(this.unsubscriber$) for all API calls?

Thank you! I've also removed this.routesService.refresh(); both occurences and seems to be working fine now.

I've overridden ABP PermissionAppService and debugged it. No issue found inside - the code below is called and contains correct data:

    public virtual async Task UpdateAsync(string providerName, string providerKey, UpdatePermissionsDto input)
    {
        await CheckProviderPolicy(providerName);

        foreach (var permissionDto in input.Permissions)
        {
            await PermissionManager.SetAsync(permissionDto.Name, providerName, providerKey, permissionDto.IsGranted);
        }

        await RabbitMqManager.UpdateAbpPermissionsAsync(input.Permissions, providerName, providerKey, CurrentTenant.Id);
    }

So moving on, I've overriden PermissionManager too and found out that SetAsync does not actually update DB:

I can see though, that there's no point to override PermissionManager - its method is very simple:

    public override async Task<PermissionDefinition> GetOrNullAsync(string name)
    {
        Check.NotNull(name, nameof(name));
    
        return await _staticStore.GetOrNullAsync(name) ??
               await _dynamicStore.GetOrNullAsync(name);
    }
    

So I proceeded - overridden StaticPermissionDefinitionStore:

    [Dependency(ReplaceServices = true)]
    [ExposeServices(typeof(IStaticPermissionDefinitionStore))]
    public class ApiStaticPermissionDefinitionStore : StaticPermissionDefinitionStore, IApiStaticPermissionDefinitionStore
    {
        public ApiStaticPermissionDefinitionStore(
            IServiceProvider serviceProvider,
            IOptions<AbpPermissionOptions> options) : base(serviceProvider, options)
        {
        }
    
        public void AddPermissionDefinition(string key, PermissionDefinition permissionDefinition)
        {
            if (!PermissionDefinitions.ContainsKey(key))
            {
                PermissionDefinitions.Add(key, permissionDefinition);
            }
        }
    }

My idea was to create a method in my IStaticPermissionDefinitionStore override, where I would FORCE adding a new PermissionDefinition to the existing collection. However, after adding it I've discovered that a whole custom permission definition collection is broken. BTW - inside AddPermissionDefinition I've looked at a whole PermissionDefinitions collection and suprisingly discovered that not all definitions are there: my custom definitions were not there by this time (yet?)

Probably you can suggest another way around this?

Hi,

we need to check this remotely, as we are unable understand the tenant switch scenario. is that okay with you?

As I wrote before, probably to reproduce the issue, tenant switching is not needed: it can be just UI button click which triggers https://localhost:44337/[test-app]/application-configuration?includeLocalizationResources=false call. Where the overriden AbpApplicationConfigurationAppService GetAsync() method returns the mentioned structure in extraProperties, so if some Module ID has false - the relevant page needs to be removed from ABP navigation menu. If the Module ID is not there - the page needs to be shown again. And this structure is randomly generated on each button click (giving different Module IDs from the existing ones), imitating tenant switching. Does it make sense to you?

Anyway, our policies do not allow us to share the code or show it via screen-sharing... Sorry.

Will try, thank you. Will keep you posted.

I'm afraid I can't do that. This is a commercial project - I can just show some pieces of code. Besides - we don't even have SQL Server Express setup (we use another DB) and we don't use test ABP app generation, so all preparation work would take a way more time than we are given for bug-fixing.

Probably you have some ready testing environment at your side set up? In this case even tenant switching functionality itself can be omitted - you just need to rerun this API call (by the UI button?):

And in the extra-properties return something like hidePageMap dictionary: { [moduleId of the page]: true, [moduleId of the page]: true } - moduleIDs can be randomly selected from the predefined collection you use (see below), so it imitates different users permissions when switching tenants.

Module ID for any relevant page is supplied (and read in Angular app) here: and here:

So each time you click the button and return result from application configuration - the menu needs to be shown according to the "visible" module IDs only.

P.S. Maybe in future I will ask our management to give us time for building original ABP solution test environment to be able to create bug reproduction scenarios, so it will be easier for all.

Hi Anjali.

Thank you for the response.

First - window.location.href = '/' does not help. The menu is still empty. But I was already able to make it work this way before using window.location.reload() or something like that. However, I want to avoid this approach. The reason is that this Angular thing is a Single Page Application and it does not look nice to reload a whole page instead of just refreshing a navigation menu - this is exactly what I want to get.

The idea is the following: after I receive this.configStateService.getDeep$('extraProperties.modulePermissionMap') from server, I want to make decision myself, what to show in the menu and what - not. Since ABP builds its menu based on ordinary permissions - I had to use the approach with

this.routesService.flat.filter(x => x.requiredPolicy && (x as any).data?.moduleId).forEach(x => x.invisible = true);
this.routesService.refresh();

to hide ALL the menu items from the very beginning and then start applying my logic (combineLatest([this.configStateService.getDeep$('extraProperties.modulePermissionMap'), this.routesService.flat$.pipe(take(1))])). Probably my approach is incorrect - then please advice me how to obtain my goal.

Can you provide the tenant switching context like after a tenant switch are you reloading the page?

After a successful tenant switch I'm calling the piece of code in complete callback (see the switch method code above). Also - due do the fact that switching a tenant causes changing the value of this.currentUser$ observable - the if (currentUser?.isAuthenticated) part is called (also shown above). Eventually, the aim of init method (as shown above too) is to filter out the available menu items according to user permission map in this.configStateService.getDeep$('extraProperties.modulePermissionMap') (you proposed this approach - using extraProperties- in another ticket and it was a good suggestion, everything works good, except when switching to another tenant).

Probably my code is incorrect, but I cannot share the project, sorry. So I only can write what I'd like to do:

when I switch to another tenant - the left navigation menu is refreshed and displays only those items which are available according to this current tenant users' permissions. Also I need to navigate to root (home) page, because it is the only page which is guaranteed to be available no matter what permissions are.

I really cannot switch to Redis, but I checked the UnitOfWork split and it did not help:

    [Authorize(IdentityPermissions.Roles.ManagePermissions)]
    public virtual async Task SetModuleRolesAsPermissionsAsync(Guid id, RoleUpdateDto input)
    {
        var parentRole = await _identityRoleRepository.FindAsync(id, false);
        if (parentRole == null)
        {
            throw new BusinessException(DomainErrorCodes.NotFound, _stringLocalizer.GetString("Roles:RoleNotFound"));
        }

        using (CurrentTenant.Change(null))
        {
            input.Permissions = await MergeParentAndChildPermissions(input.Permissions, parentRole.Name, ModulePermissionRoleValueProvider.ProviderName);
        }

        await InvalidateModuleRoleNameCache(parentRole.NormalizedName);

        using (var uow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true, isTransactional: false))
        {
            await _permissionAppService.UpdateAsync(ModulePermissionRoleValueProvider.ProviderName, parentRole.Name, new UpdatePermissionsDto { Permissions = input.Permissions.ToArray() });
            await uow.CompleteAsync();
        }

        using (var uow = _unitOfWorkManager.Begin(requiresNew: true, isTransactional: false))
        {
            await _rabbitMqManager.UpdateAbpPermissionsAsync(input.Permissions.ToArray(), ModulePermissionRoleValueProvider.ProviderName, parentRole.Name, CurrentTenant.Id);
            await uow.CompleteAsync();
        }
    }
    

If this method did not work at all - I would suspect the issue with the method. But it works correctly - however only if I restart the mentioned host X after creating a module role (my permission definition).

The method which eventually updates ABP Permission Cache is simple:

    private async Task HandleAbpUpdatePermission(AbpPermissionRabbitMqUpdateEto abpPermissionData)
    {
        if (abpPermissionData == null)
        {
            return;
        }

        var abpPermissionGrantCache = _serviceProvider.GetService<IDistributedCache<PermissionGrantCacheItem>>();

        var currentTenant = _serviceProvider.GetService<ICurrentTenant>();

        using (currentTenant.Change(abpPermissionData.AbpTenantId))
        {
            await abpPermissionGrantCache.SetManyAsync(
                abpPermissionData.Permissions.Select(permission =>
                    new KeyValuePair<string, PermissionGrantCacheItem>(permission.Key, new PermissionGrantCacheItem(permission.Value))));
        }
    }
    

So what is happening after calling ABP PermissionAppService - _rabbitMqManager.UpdateAbpPermissionsAsync sends the message to the RabbitMQ queue and each host updates its own Permission Cache.

Is it possible to debug PermissionAppService trying to figure out why the update produces no result?

I think we are not ready to switch to Redis now... We will keep using ABP caches in the nearest time. At least it proved workable with RabbitMQ sync. I will keep you informed if splitting into units would help.