How does the project look so far?

[iammukeshm]

Hi all,

I have managed to integrate quite a lot of features into this boilerplate project right from clean architecture to multitenancy. What do you think about the current outcome? Any suggestions/feedbacks are welcome. It quotes important for me to have some feedback from some of you so that the project can be steered on the right path.

Make sure to join our Discord - https://discord.gg/yQWpShsKrf

Cheers!

[dsoltesz]

This is great for starting new projects but what about integrating and updating existing projects to use some or all of the features

…

________________________________ From: Mukesh Murugan ***@***.***> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 3:21:58 PM To: fullstackhero/dotnet-webapi-boilerplate ***@***.***> Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***> Subject: [fullstackhero/dotnet-webapi-boilerplate] How does the project look so far? (Discussion #76) Hi all, I have managed to integrate quite a lot of features into this boilerplate project right from clean architecture to multitenancy. What do you think about the current outcome? Any suggestions/feedbacks are welcome. It quotes important for me to have some feedback from some of you so that the project can be steered on the right path. Cheers! — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#76>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALFFSJNY7OYZJ2ZDYYFQBTUEIIVNANCNFSM5E6EWKBA>.

[iammukeshm]

dotnet cli tooling is not very advanced to achieve this. However, there should be some workarounds which I will check on later and let you know.

Updating a fullstackhero template project which is in 0.0.1 to x.x.x should be doable by changing the remote URL of your repo. Of course there will be merge conflicts. I will post detailed documentation about this shortly.

Regards

[AlexIvanRBC]

Great boilerplate, but what if I could somehow "choose" what features to use or not ?
Example : I don't need multitenancy. How can i only remove this from this project, without affecting the whole project ?

[justSteve]

I'd be surprised if removing the multitenancy feature would gain you all that much. I'd also be surprised if a year or 2 down the road you didn't find that having it to fall back on is really valuable.

I'd go so far as to say that any non-trivial ecommerce project should be built with multi-tenant support. With ecomm it's highly likely that you'll want to implement support for 'affiliates' or some other way to distinguish one source of sales from another -- or to customize how a product is rendered (or perhaps hidden) -- or how the notification engine works.

That said -- I doubt the multi-tenancy bits would get in your way if you aren't using them.

best of luck

[iammukeshm]

Yes, I totally agree with @justSteve. The application by default seeds up a default tenant. You could use this tenant (root) as your only tenant and steer the application as a Single Tenant Application without making any code change. Note that the root tenant also is an application user who all access to all the tables as well. Also, the only place you would need to use the tenantKey in your request is while posting to /token endpoint, which again can be handled at the client application side, where you hardcode the default tenant value as root. That should be the easiest way to make the application single-tenant without making any code change. Additionally, you can comment out the TenantController as well if you need.

That saying, I too think that having a multitenant application is quite vital nowadays,

Regards.

[justSteve]

What do you think about the current outcome? Any suggestions/feedbacks are welcome. ...have some feedback from some of you so that the project can be steered on the right path.

The consensus 'reference project' of Clean Architecture -- Steve Smith's https://github.com/ardalis/CleanArchitecture is critical to understanding CA from a theoretical pov, this repo is a first rate CA jumpstarter. As you develop documentation I think it would be a great idea of explicitly building on Smith's work -- newcomers to this should be directed there for an understanding of fundamental principles and you should devote your energies to explaining your choices (as opposed to re-defining what CA is and why it's important).

You've already identified that documentation and tests are on the roadmap as well as how other frameworks (Blazor, Angular, and MVC) will consume it. I've seen elsewhere that you intend to flesh out an Angular client next.

I'd like to suggest you layout guidelines to exactly how those clients will consume this API and invite your growing community to take on the non-Angular projects ASAP.

Cheering you on and ready to pitch in to help refine your efforts!

thx

[mikecasas]

I agree with @justSteve, you could let the community build the blazor client. You just need to give direction on what you want. Meaning do you want to use MudBlazor like in BlazorHero, etc...

[jiscanlon]

Not disagreeing with anything that has been said so far but to me it seems that the focus is on greenfield projects and this code fits the bill in that regard 100%. It is well thought out, uses best practices, and is a job very well done.

For projects requiring integration, yes, it would be nice to have some of the larger pieces (multi-tenancy, EF Identity keys [int vs guid], authentication/authorization implementation), be a little more pluggable or configurable because often practical constraints exist in existing business systems that dictate such decisions for us developers.

However, that being said, if you are going to use this boilerplate in your place of business, you should invest the time to know the code well enough that replacing/tweaking parts to fit your own in-house needs shouldn't be too big a deal. i.e.: using AzureAD for authentication/authorization isn't that hard to figure out and pulling out localization or multitenancy, while a bit more work, is certainly doable but it is something you should do for yourself so that you understand the tradeoffs involved in what you are doing.

For these types of issues, guidance would be enough, I think, to get most people where they'd need to be in order to integrate their existing infrastructure resources but all of this seems a bit beyond a 1.0 release to me.

Keep on keeping on, this is great stuff. Cheers!

[Lokman-Simsek]

Hi Mukesh

Adding two factor authentication to the project would be a nice option
There may also be options such as Google, Yandex authenticator, email, sms etc.

Keep up this great project. I wish you success.

[iammukeshm]

Google Authenticator was already in my mind. Thanks for reminding me. I will check its feasibility and try to include it in the next release. Do you see any blockers if we try to include Authenticator within our current implementation? @Lokman-Simsek

[Lokman-Simsek]

I'm still trying to understand the project structure. I don't have much information. Those who are more experienced than me can offer better ideas on this subject.

Thank you for your interest.

[snax4a]

I'm still trying to understand the project structure. I don't have much information. Those who are more experienced than me can offer better ideas on this subject.

Thank you for your interest.

I would also like to see some docs explaining the project structure for newcomers so they could know in which place they should add specific features. For example whats the difference between core/application services vs infrastructure services

[alonsohdez]

Excellent Asp.net Core boilerplate. Is it possible to add RecurringJobs within the jobServices (BackgroungJobs)? I've been trying, but there are issues with the filter as it wasn't adding the tenant information.