Polly VS FluentValidation

In our applications, we should wrap all requests to remote services in code that implements a retry policy that follows one of the strategies I listed earlier. If you are a .NET developer like myself, you may be familiar with the Polly library. Golang has a library called Retry, and there are numerous third-party libraries for Python and Java.

Another question that rises is, would it be better to use some HttpClient package to handle the requests, like Refit in combination with Polly. But then again, it seems Refit also uses the HttpClient factory, which was a bad thing according to the previous?

D'Oh! Sorry, not PolySharp. I meant Polly. Too many similarly-named libraries!

Everywhere I've worked with AGs, we've worked with the application team to add retry logic to help make things a bit more seamless to end users. There are libraries out there that can make this pretty easy - Polly is one that I've used a few times, but there are others.

Fallacy 1: The network is reliable. If system 2 works perfectly well, but is not accessible for service 1 due to network issues, service 2 is still unavailable. This is why timeouts, service breakers and retry policies exist. A great tool for .NET to handle common network issues is Polly, but even when using a tool like this, the network is still not completely reliable.

I see. Then I don't have any better idea right now, but I do want to suggest that if your script is mostly API calls and you want to be able to deal with failures then take a look at the polly library: https://github.com/App-vNext/Polly

Runs in containers nicely, has good integration with Kafka, RabbitMQ, gRPC, etc. for Microservices communication. Implements resiliency patterns you'd want in Microservices via Polly. Has a decent Dependency Injection framework built in by default.

It's in no way hidden. But I use Polly all the time.

Depending if the sender or the reciever is down, you can also try Polly http://www.thepollyproject.org/

Here is an example of Command handler with built-in Fluent Validation and fire and forget style:

There is an RFC called Problem Details (RFC7807) that standardizes how an error in an API should be responded to for the client. If you use Fluent validation, you may have noticed that the response is within this pattern.

here we're defining the input validation requirements using fluent validation rules. let's see what happens when the user input doesn't meet the above criteria. execute the same request in swagger with the following incorrect json content:

I remember FluentValidation being a nice library for this type of stuff.

Literally the code example in the front page: https://fluentvalidation.net/

https://www.nuget.org/packages/Newtonsoft.Json/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/AutoMapper/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/Dapper/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/FluentValidation/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/FluentAssertions/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/NUnit/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/xunit/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/YamlDotNet/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/Moq/ That is simply not true. Mature c# projects purposely maintain no downstream dependencies and is they do, it's to a major reputable lib. See for yourself - these are staple third party packages commonly used. Anything dependency starting with System or NETStandard is Microsoft maintained.

FluentValidator for validating and authorising certain fields.

Now that we know the importance of providing users with enough information about their requests and how it was processed, let’s focus on how we can configure our API to help us do that.One aspect of such meaningful experience is Request Validation (400 Error Range). For that purpose I am using a library called Fluent Validation.