Backendless Support
 
Solved

Backendless CustomLogic Broken for .NET

I've got a problem with my businesslogic that is suddenly not working. I've changed nothing in my code and a couple of weeks ago the code did work.

When calling Backendless.CustomService.Invoke is get the following exception:

{Backendless BackendlessFault. Code: Server.Processing, Message: unable to find method in class. method name dispatchService}

I've allready updated backendless.dll to the latest version and redeployed my custom logic. Running invoke in the backendless console works and returns data.

I'm also wondering when the service 4.0 goes out of beta. I like to go live with my application the 1ste of july. With backendless 4.0 still in beta I just can't risk it.

With kind regards,

Leave a Comment

Comments (5)

photo
1

Hello Kris,

this issue will be fixed on this week. internal ticket is BKNDLSS-14866

photo
1

Hi Kris,

The issue has been fixed, please grab the latest assembly from: https://github.com/Backendless/.NET-SDK/tree/4.0/Backendless/Bin/NET_40

One of the arguments (serviceVersion) has been removed from Backendless.CustomService.invoke. Everything else is the same.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Hi Mark,

This is maybe a stupid question. But how do test the debug services without the use of serviceVersion?

Regards,

Kris

photo
1

Hi Kris,

It is a great question. I assume the complexity of testing only comes when you already have a service in production and need to test some incremental changes. Since the service version was taken out, the recommended way is to modify the service name when you put into the debug. With the Java services, you can do it either by changing the classname or by using the @BackendlessService class annotation, which makes it very easy to modify the service name. With the JS services, you can change the service class name.

Regards,

Mark

photo
1

Mark,

Thanks for the clear explanation how to solve / workaround the remove of serviceVersion for debugging. I need to change a bit of my code but like you explained. It's just a different way with the same result.

Regards,

Kris