We Keep Coding

What design pattern can be followed while implementing API that calls multiple APIs

I have just begun exploring the design patterns and implementation of Web APIs.
I have a scenario where one single API requests to a set of APIs in sequence based on a string value.
Eg: let's say I have an API called StartAPI.
This might send request to a subset of APIs (let's call it API_X, API_Y, API_Z, API_T, API_U) based on given string.
Let's assume the below:
If i pass "string1" or "string2" to StartAPI then it should call API_X, API_Z.
If i pass "string3" it calls API_X, API_Z, API_T.
If i pass "string4" it calls all APIs
API_X, API_Z, API_T, API_Y, API_U.
What design pattern can I follow in this case to minimise the if else conditions?

It looks like that Chain of Responsibity pattern is way to go. As wiki says:
the chain-of-responsibility pattern is a behavioral design pattern
consisting of a source of command objects and a series of processing
objects.1 Each processing object contains logic that defines the
types of command objects that it can handle; the rest are passed to
the next processing object in the chain. A mechanism also exists for
adding new processing objects to the end of this chain.
So let me show an example how code would look like. Let's start from classes which define API:
public class BaseApi
{
public virtual string Get()
{
return "";
}
}
and its concrete implementations:
public class ApiX : BaseApi
{
public override string Get()
{
return "Api_X";
}
}
public class ApiZ : BaseApi
{
public override string Get()
{
return "Api_X";
}
}
public class ApiT : BaseApi
{
public override string Get()
{
return "Api_T";
}
}
Then this is Parameter class:
public class Parameter
{
public string Parameter_1 { get; set; }
}
Then we need some place where we will store all API's that should be called. I think, we can create some very simple factory. This factory will have just one overridable method:
public abstract class ApiSimpleFactory
{
public abstract IEnumerable<BaseApi> GetAll();
}
and its concrete implementations:
public class ApiXZSimpleFactory : ApiSimpleFactory
{
public override IEnumerable<BaseApi> GetAll() =>
new List<BaseApi>()
{
new ApiX(),
new ApiZ(),
};
}
public class ApiXZTSimpleFactory : ApiSimpleFactory
{
public override IEnumerable<BaseApi> GetAll() =>
new List<BaseApi>()
{
new ApiX(),
new ApiZ(),
new ApiT(),
};
}
Now, we are ready to implementat Chain Of Responsibity pattern:
public abstract class ApiHandler
{
private protected abstract IEnumerable<string> ParameterOptions { get; }
private ApiHandler _nextApiHandler;
public void SetSuccessor(ApiHandler nextVehicleHandler)
{
_nextApiHandler = nextVehicleHandler;
}
public virtual ApiSimpleFactory Execute(Parameter parameter)
{
if (_nextApiHandler != null)
return _nextApiHandler.Execute(parameter);
return null;
}
}
and its concrete implementations:
public class XZApiHandler : ApiHandler
{
private protected override IEnumerable<string> ParameterOptions =>
new List<string> { "string1", "string2" };
public override ApiSimpleFactory Execute(Parameter parameter)
{
if (ParameterOptions.Contains(parameter.Parameter_1))
return new ApiXZSimpleFactory();
return base.Execute(parameter);
}
}
public class XZTApiHandler : ApiHandler
{
private protected override IEnumerable<string> ParameterOptions =>
new List<string> { "string3" };
public override ApiSimpleFactory Execute(Parameter parameter)
{
if (ParameterOptions.Contains(parameter.Parameter_1))
return new ApiXZTSimpleFactory();
return base.Execute(parameter);
}
}
And now we can execute our code:
ApiHandler chain = new XZApiHandler();
ApiHandler xztApiHandler = new XZTApiHandler();
chain.SetSuccessor(xztApiHandler);
Parameter parameter = new Parameter { Parameter_1 = "string3" };
ApiSimpleFactory apiFactory = chain.Execute(parameter);
IEnumerable<BaseApi> apiToBeExecuted = apiFactory.GetAll();

Which design pattern to use when we have classes that does similar high level functionality but the returns different types in methods?

I have an existing C# console application that takes arguments and based on the arguments
creates an instance of markets (UK, US, MX..) using dependency injection.
Each market class does a 'string GetData()', 'string ProcessData()' and 'bool ExportData()'.
The application was initially created for one eCommerce vendor's markets. Now I am told to modify it for a different vendor that does a different process. The high-level flow remains the same.
'GetData' to fetch records from DB,
'ProcessData' for any transformation or the likes
'ExportData'.
The difference is Getdata() pulls records from DB and maps to an object. I am planning to use Petapoco. 'ProcessData' might return a similar class. 'Exportdata' currently does an API call but for the new vendor, I have to write to a file.
I was reading up on patterns I am totally confused. At first, I thought I needed abstract factory pattern and now I think the factory method is what I should be using but I am not sure if I am doing it right. Need some guidance/review here. A sample cs file I created from my understanding of factory pattern. This code is based on the headfirst code samples.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using StatusExport.Models;
namespace factorymethod
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ClientFactory factory = null;
Console.WriteLine("Enter client code:");
string clientCode= Console.ReadLine();
switch (clientCode.ToLower())
{
case "costco":
factory = new CostcoFactory("accountname", "taskname");
break;
//NEw vendor might be added
//case "walmart"
//factory = new WalmartFactory("taskname", "type");
//break
default:
break;
}
bool status = factory.ProcessData();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
abstract class Client
{
public abstract string AccountName { get; }
public abstract string Task { get; set; }
//More properties might be added. Some may not even be used by some of the new vendors. For example, Costco Might need accountname and task. Tomorrow if walmart comes, they might not need these two or may need task and a new property 'type'
public abstract List<T> GetData<T>();
public abstract List<T> ProcessData<T>();
public abstract bool ExportData();
}
class CostcoClient : Client
{
public override string AccountName { get; }
public override string Task { get; set; }
public CostcoClient(string accountName, string task)
{
AccountName = accountName;
Task = task;
}
public override List<DBRecord> GetData<DBRecord>() //DBRecord class is specific to Costco.
{
List<DBRecord> dbresult = new List<DBRecord>();
//dbresult = db return data mapped to an object DBRecord using petapoco. Another vendor might have a different class to which DB records are mapped. So the return type can be generic
return asn;
}
public override List<T> ProcessData<T>()
{
throw new NotImplementedException(); //Any data transformation or business logic. Return type might be DBRecord or a new class altogether
}
public override bool ExportData()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();//Call API or write data to file and if success send true else false
}
}
abstract class ClientFactory
{
public abstract bool ProcessData();
}
class CostcoFactory : ClientFactory
{
public string AccountName { get; }
public string Task { get; set; }
public CostcoFactory(string accountname, string task)
{
AccountName = accountname;
Task = task;
}
public override bool ProcessData()
{
CostcoClient gc = new CostcoClient(AccountName, Task);
var result = gc.GetData<DBRecord>();
return true;
}
}
}
Do you think this is the right design approach?
I also want to keep the console project independent of vendor project. So maybe 'StatusExport.Program' for the console application. DLL projects StatusExport.Common to hold the interface and abstract classes' and 'StatusExport.Client(ex:StatusExport.Costco)' for each vendor stuff.

You can create BaseClient class that will contains a basic group of properties, and if you need to add something new - just inherit it. You did right, but i think it's better to change public modifier to protected in your properties AccountName and Task, to give access to them only from child classes.
Actually, you can create a BaseClientModels (request/response) for each method if you are not sure that returning type List will be always actual.
Example:
public abstract class BaseClient
{
#region Properties : Protected
protected abstract string AccountName { get; }
protected abstract string Task { get; set; }
#endregion
#region Methods : Public
public abstract BaseGetDataResponseModel GetData(BaseGetDataRequestModel model);
public abstract BaseProcessDataResponseModel ProcessData(BaseProcessDataRequestModel model);
public abstract BaseExportDataResponseModel ExportData(BaseExportDataRequestModel model);
#endregion
}
public class BaseGetDataResponseModel { }
public class BaseGetDataRequestModel { }
public class BaseProcessDataResponseModel { }
public class BaseProcessDataRequestModel { }
public class BaseExportDataResponseModel { }
public class BaseExportDataRequestModel { }
Then let's look on your class CostcoClient and how it can looks like:
public class CostcoClient : BaseClient
{
#region Properties : Protected
protected override string AccountName { get; }
protected override string Task { get; set; }
protected virtual IDataReader<BaseGetDataRequestModel, BaseGetDataResponseModel> DataReader { get; }
protected virtual IDataProcessor<CostcoClientProcessDataRequestModel, CostcoClientProcessDataResponseModel> DataProcessor { get; }
protected virtual IExportDataHandler<CostcoClientExportDataRequestModel, CostcoClientExportDataResponseModel> ExportDataHandler { get; }
#endregion
#region Constructors
public CostcoClient(string accountName, string task)
{
//set DataReader, DataProcessor, ExportDataHandler
AccountName = accountName;
Task = task;
}
#endregion
#region Methods : Public
public override BaseGetDataResponseModel GetData(BaseGetDataRequestModel model)
{
if (model is CostcoClientGetDataRequestModel clientGetDataRequestModel)
{
return DataReader.ReadData(clientGetDataRequestModel);
}
return null; //wrong type has passed
}
public override BaseProcessDataResponseModel ProcessData(BaseProcessDataRequestModel model)
{
if (model is CostcoClientProcessDataRequestModel clientProcessDataRequestModel)
{
return DataProcessor.ProcessData(clientProcessDataRequestModel);
}
return null;
}
public override BaseExportDataResponseModel ExportData(BaseExportDataRequestModel model)
{
if (model is CostcoClientExportDataRequestModel clientExportDataRequestModel)
{
return ExportDataHandler.Handle(clientExportDataRequestModel);
}
return null;
}
#endregion
}
public class CostcoClientGetDataRequestModel : BaseGetDataRequestModel { }
public class CostcoClientGetDataResponseModel : BaseGetDataResponseModel { }
public class CostcoClientProcessDataRequestModel : BaseProcessDataRequestModel { }
public class CostcoClientProcessDataResponseModel : BaseProcessDataResponseModel { }
public class CostcoClientExportDataRequestModel : BaseExportDataRequestModel { }
public class CostcoClientExportDataResponseModel : BaseExportDataResponseModel { }
public interface IDataReader<TIn, TOut>
{
public TOut ReadData(TIn model);
}
public interface IDataProcessor<TIn, TOut>
{
public TOut ProcessData(TIn model);
}
public interface IExportDataHandler<TIn, TOut>
{
public TOut Handle(TIn model);
}
public class CostcoClientDataReader : IDataReader<CostcoClientGetDataRequestModel, CostcoClientGetDataResponseModel>
{
public CostcoClientGetDataResponseModel ReadData(CostcoClientGetDataRequestModel model)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
//and so on
You have to implement IDataReader, IDataProcessor, IExportDataHandler, make your logic and call it from GetData, ProcessData, ExportData methods, as an example, and get instances via dependency injection.
Then, we can change your factory to this:
public interface IClientFactory
{
BaseClient GetClientService(ClientServicesEnum value);
}
public class BaseClientFactory : IClientFactory
{
#region Propertied : Protected
protected virtual IEnumerable<BaseClient> Services { get; }
protected string AccountName { get; }
protected string Task { get; set; }
#endregion
#region Constructors
public BaseClientFactory(IEnumerable<BaseClient> services, string accountname, string task)
{
Services = services;
AccountName = accountname;
Task = task;
}
#endregion
public BaseClient GetClientService(ClientServicesEnum value)
=> Services.First(x => x.GetType().Equals(GetClientServiceByCode()[value]));
private Dictionary<ClientServicesEnum, Type> GetClientServiceByCode()
=> new Dictionary<ClientServicesEnum, Type>()
{
{ ClientServicesEnum.CostcoClient, typeof(CostcoClient) }
};
}
public enum ClientServicesEnum
{
CostcoClient = 1,
Another2 = 2,
Another3 = 3
}
Where
protected virtual IEnumerable<BaseClient> Services { get; }
you can get via DI too, and then get correct ServiceHandler by enum.
And your main function to call all this:
switch (clientCode)
{
case 1:
baseClient = ClientFactory.GetClientService(ClientServicesEnum.CostcoClient);
break;
case 2:
baseClient = ClientFactory.GetClientService(ClientServicesEnum.Another2);
break;
default:
break;
}
bool status = baseClient.ProcessData(null); //your model
The main thing is - you can use more than one pattern, for example one from Creational patterns, and one from Structural.
If i need some help in code architecture i use this:
https://refactoring.guru/
I think, using this example you can remove properties AccountName and Task, because of request models in methods.

How to return interface using generic in C#

I am new in C# Generic concept and I would like to return interface implemented class using generic concept. Below is my example which is currently implemented without generic:
1) Factory Class which return interface and this class has two overload method which accept different data model:
public class Factory
{
public ICommon Init(DBInfoData dbInfoData)
{
return new ClassA(dbInfoData);
}
public ICommon Init(WebInfoData webInfoData)
{
return new ClassB(webInfoData);
}
}
2) Interface and interface implemented two class as below:
//=== Common Interface
public interface ICommon
{
void MethodA();
void MethodB();
}
//=== Internal access only ClassA
internal class ClassA : ICommon
{
private DBInfoData _DBInfoData = null;
public ClassA(DBInfoData dbInfoData)
{
_DBInfoData = dbInfoData;
}
public void MethodA()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void MethodB()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
//=== Internal access only ClassB
internal class ClassB : ICommon
{
private WebInfoData _WebInfoData = null;
public ClassB(WebInfoData webInfoData)
{
_WebInfoData = webInfoData;
}
public void MethodA()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void MethodB()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
3) Data Model class as below:
//=== Database Information
public class DBInfoData
{
public string Server { get; set; }
public string Database { get; set; }
}
//=== Web Server Information
public class WebInfoData
{
public string URL { get; set; }
public int Port { get; set; }
}
Now I want to implement generic functionality of C# where in factory class I do not want to declare two overload method. Using single method I can return ClassA or ClassB based on Data Model pass.

You could edit the Init method without having to edit anything else. This method will take a generic type parameter T, which can be of any type. Then you can use the is operator, which according to the docs used to type testing. You need to check however for any unsupported type of T, because you didn't add any constraint to the generic type passed. A raw implementation would be:
public class Factory
{
public ICommon Init<T>(T infoData)
{
if (infoData is DBInfoData dbInfoData) {
return new ClassA(dbInfoData);
}
if (infoData is WebInfoData webInfoData) {
return new ClassB(webInfoData);
}
throw new Exception($"Cannot create instance for info data of type {infoData.GetType().Name}");
}
}
And to test it:
var factory = new Factory();
var t1 = factory.Init(new DBInfoData()); // will be ClassA
var t2 = factory.Init(new WebInfoData()); // ClassB
To sophisticate it, you could introduce type constraint on your generic T class to make sure you can only pass appropriate types. For the current situation, you could create a marker interface for your classes DBInfoData and WebInfoData by introducing an empty interface say IInfoData. Then you have to inherit your classes like this:
public interface IInfoData {}
public class DBInfoData : IInfoData
{
public string Server { get; set; }
public string Database { get; set; }
}
public class WebInfoData : IInfoData
{
public string URL { get; set; }
public int Port { get; set; }
}
Now both inherits from (actually 'marked by') your base interface. Introduce a constraint to your factory to allow only descendants of IInfoData to be passed as an argument (so either DBInfoData or WebInfoData) by adding a constraint shown in the docs I linked above:
public class Factory
{
public ICommon Init<T>(T infoData) where T: IInfoData
{
if (infoData is DBInfoData dbInfoData) {
return new ClassA(dbInfoData);
}
if (infoData is WebInfoData webInfoData) {
return new ClassB(webInfoData);
}
throw new Exception($"Cannot create instance for info data of type {infoData.GetType().Name}");
}
}
Any type other than the descendants of IInfoData will cause a compilation error, and you're done. Use it like in my previous example:
var factory = new Factory();
var t1 = factory.Init(new DBInfoData()); // will be ClassA
var t2 = factory.Init(new WebInfoData()); // ClassB

Why do I get NullReferenceException in my factory pattern implementation, c#?

Main class:
public class ClP_Login
{
private Form vrcView;
private I_Repository<I_Identifiable> vrcRepository = null;
public ClP_Login(Form vrpView)
{
vrcView = vrpView;
SetTheme();
}
private void SetTheme()
{
if(vrcView !=null)
vrcView.BackColor = Cl_BaseColor.StandardBackground;
}
public void CreateNewUser()
{
ClE_User test = new ClE_User();
test.Name = "test name";
test.Password = "";
Cl_RepositoryFactory vrlFactory = new Cl_RepositoryFactory();
vrcRepository = vrlFactory.CreateRepository(E_Repositories.User);
vrcRepository.Add(test);
}
}
Cl_RepositoryFactory class:
public class Cl_RepositoryFactory
{
public virtual I_Repository<I_Identifiable> CreateRepository(E_Repositories vrpRepository)
{
I_Repository<I_Identifiable> vrlRepository = null;
switch (vrpRepository)
{
case E_Repositories.User:
vrlRepository = new Cl_UserRepository() as I_Repository<I_Identifiable>;
break;
}
return vrlRepository;
}
}
Enum E_Repositories:
public enum E_Repositories
{
User
}
I_Identifiable Interface:
public interface I_Identifiable
{
int Id { get; set; }
}
I_Repository Interface:
public interface I_Repository<T>
{
T GetById(Guid id);
T GetByQuery(Queue query);
void Add(T item);
void Remove(T item);
void Update(T item);
}
Cl_UserRepository class:
public class Cl_UserRepository : I_Repository<ClE_User>
{
public void Add(ClE_User item)
{
MessageBox.Show("Created new User");
}
public ClE_User GetById(Guid id)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public ClE_User GetByQuery(Queue query)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void Remove(ClE_User item)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void Update(ClE_User item)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
And ClE_User class:
public class ClE_User : I_Identifiable
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Password { get; set; }
}
The question is, why do I get null reference exception using vrcRepository?
vrlFactory.CreateRepository(E_Repositories.User); return null and I don't have any idea why, please help

In CreateRepository method try to remove casting statement as I_Repository<I_Identifiable>. If your code will not compile, that will mean Cl_UserRepository is not compatible with I_Repository<I_Identifiable>.
Otherwise everyting is correct with CreateRepository method

ClE_User inherits from I_Identifiable, but I_Repository<ClE_User> does not inherit from I_Repository<I_Identifiable>. Those are different interfaces as far as C# is concerned.
To elaborate more, you have I_Repository<I_Identifiable> vrcRepository which should in theory take I_Repository of any I_Identifiable kind. So let's say you initialize this member to some other, for instance I_Repository<ClE_SomethingOtherThanUser>. But then you call vrcRepository.Add(test). That's not going to work, with test being ClE_User.
Now, first remove the as I_Repository<I_Identifiable> part, and then to make it compile make I_Repository just a plain dumb non-generic interface, whose methods take I_Identifiable parameter or return I_Identifiable value. This may not be what you wanted, but it will compile.

EDIT
I realize that the enum will trigger. You are right
new Cl_UserRepository() as I_Repository
CL_UserRepository has to implement the interface you are trying to return, and then you don't need to type cast it at all. Sorry! I owe you a case of beer.

How should I return a generic response and response code from all functions in a .NET MVC app?

I want to be able to return a generic response from function calls in the business layer of my MVC application. Most of the time I see an object create function look like this
public int Create(ICNUser item)
{
return this._repository.Create(item);
}
public void Update(ICNUser item)
{
this._repository.Create(item);
}
In this case the _repository is a repository that wraps entity framework.
This works great for a lot of cases but I want more information to be returned and I want to have a success/failure variable and a response code for why this action failed validation. I want to optionally be able to return the inserted object or a selected object.
An example would be a create user function that returns an email can't be blank error and or a user already exists error and based on the error I show the user a different message.
The problem I'm running into is I want to have unit tests cover all of the possible response codes from a function without me having to go look at the code and try to figure out what the possible return values can be. What I'm doing feels like an anti-pattern. Is there a better way to accomplish all of this?
This is what I have now.
public IGenericActionResponse<ICNUser> Create(ICNUser item)
{
return this._repository.Create(item);
}
public IGenericActionResponse Update(ICNUser item)
{
return this._repository.Update(item);
}
Interfaces
namespace Web.ActionResponses
{
public enum ActionResponseCode
{
Success,
RecordNotFound,
InvalidCreateHash,
ExpiredCreateHash,
ExpiredModifyHash,
UnableToCreateRecord,
UnableToUpdateRecord,
UnableToSoftDeleteRecord,
UnableToHardDeleteRecord,
UserAlreadyExists,
EmailCannotBeBlank,
PasswordCannotBeBlank,
PasswordResetHashExpired,
AccountNotActivated,
InvalidEmail,
InvalidPassword,
InvalidPageAction
}
public interface IGenericActionResponse
{
bool RequestSuccessful { get; }
ActionResponseCode ResponseCode { get; }
}
public interface IGenericActionResponse<T>
{
bool RequestSuccessful { get; }
bool RecordIsNull{get;}
ActionResponseCode ResponseCode { get; }
}
}
implementations
namespace Web.ActionResponses
{
public class GenericActionResponse<T> : IGenericActionResponse<T>
{
private bool _requestSuccessful;
private ActionResponseCode _actionResponseCode;
public T Item { get; set; }
public GenericActionResponse(bool success, ActionResponseCode actionResponseCode, T item)
{
this._requestSuccessful = success;
this._actionResponseCode = actionResponseCode;
this.Item = item;
}
public GenericActionResponse(bool success, ActionResponseCode actionResponseCode)
{
this._requestSuccessful = success;
this._actionResponseCode = actionResponseCode;
this.Item = default(T);
}
public bool RecordIsNull
{
get
{
return this.Item == null;
}
}
public bool RequestSuccessful
{
get
{
return this._requestSuccessful;
}
}
public ActionResponseCode ResponseCode
{
get
{
return this._actionResponseCode;
}
}
}
public class GenericActionResponse : IGenericActionResponse
{
private bool _requestSuccessful;
private ActionResponseCode _actionResponseCode;
public GenericActionResponse(bool success, ActionResponseCode actionResponseCode)
{
this._requestSuccessful = success;
this._actionResponseCode = actionResponseCode;
}
public bool RequestSuccessful
{
get
{
return this._requestSuccessful;
}
}
public ActionResponseCode ResponseCode
{
get
{
return this._actionResponseCode;
}
}
}}
MVC app
public ActionResult ValidateResetHash(string passwordResetHash)
{
IGenericActionResponse result = (IGenericActionResponse)this._userManager.IsValidPasswordResetHash(passwordResetHash);
if (result.RequestSuccessful)
{
Models.PasswordChangeModel model = new Models.PasswordChangeModel();
model.PasswordResetHash = passwordResetHash;
return View("~/Areas/Public/Views/ResetPassword/PasswordChangeForm.cshtml", model);
}
else
{
switch (result.ResponseCode)
{
case ActionResponseCode.RecordNotFound:
{
FermataFish.Models.GenericActionModel responseModel = new FermataFish.Models.GenericActionModel(true, "/Login", "Login", "You have submitted an invalid password reset link.", false);
return View("~/Views/Shared/GenericAction.cshtml", responseModel);
}
case ActionResponseCode.PasswordResetHashExpired:
{
FermataFish.Models.GenericActionModel responseModel = new FermataFish.Models.GenericActionModel(true, "/ResetPassword", "Reset Password", "You have submitted an expired password reset link. You must reset your password again to change it.", false);
return View("~/Views/Shared/GenericAction.cshtml", responseModel);
}
default:
{
FermataFish.Models.GenericActionModel responseModel = new FermataFish.Models.GenericActionModel(true, "/", "Home", "An unknown error has occured. The system administrator has been notified. Error code:" + Enum.GetName(typeof(ActionResponseCode), result.ResponseCode), false);
return View("~/Views/Shared/GenericAction.cshtml", responseModel);
}
}
}
}

The switch statement in your ValidateResetHash response is a tad code smelly. This would suggest to me that you may benefit from the use of a subclassable enum. The subclassable enum would map action response codes or types to return views with models. Here is a compiling example of how to use this.
First some class fills I used to get a compiling example:
public class GenericActionModel
{
private bool v1;
private string v2;
private string v3;
private string v4;
private bool v5;
protected GenericActionModel() {}
public GenericActionModel(bool v1, string v2, string v3, string v4, bool v5)
{
this.v1 = v1;
this.v2 = v2;
this.v3 = v3;
this.v4 = v4;
this.v5 = v5;
}
}
public class ActionResult
{
private GenericActionModel responseModel;
private string v;
public ActionResult(string v, GenericActionModel responseModel)
{
this.v = v;
this.responseModel = responseModel;
}
}
public class PasswordChangeModel : GenericActionModel
{
public object PasswordResetHash
{
get;
set;
}
}
public interface IUserManager
{
Response IsValidPasswordResetHash(string passwordResetHash);
}
Next some infrastructure(framework) classes (I'm using StringEnum base class from the AtomicStack project for the ResponseEnum base class):
public abstract class Response
{
public abstract string name { get; }
}
public class Response<TResponse> : Response where TResponse : Response<TResponse>
{
private static string _name = typeof(TResponse).Name;
public override string name => _name;
}
// Base ResponseEnum class to be used by more specific enum sets
public abstract class ResponseEnum<TResponseEnum> : StringEnum<TResponseEnum>
where TResponseEnum : ResponseEnum<TResponseEnum>
{
protected ResponseEnum(string responseName) : base(responseName) {}
public abstract ActionResult GenerateView(Response response);
}
Here are some sample responses:
public class HashValidated : Response<HashValidated>
{
public string passwordResetHash;
}
public class InvalidHash : Response<InvalidHash> {}
public class PasswordResetHashExpired : Response<PasswordResetHashExpired> {}
public class Unexpected : Response<Unexpected> {}
A sample subclassable enum mapping the sample responses would look something like this:
public abstract class ValidateHashResponses : ResponseEnum<ValidateHashResponses>
{
public static readonly ValidateHashResponses HashOk = HashValidatedResponse.instance;
public static readonly ValidateHashResponses InvalidHash = InvalidHashResponse.instance;
public static readonly ValidateHashResponses PasswordResetHashExpired = PasswordResetHashExpiredResponse.instance;
public static readonly ValidateHashResponses Default = DefaultResponse.instance;
private ValidateHashResponses(string responseName) : base(responseName) {}
protected abstract class ValidateHashResponse<TValidateHashResponse, TResponse> : ValidateHashResponses
where TValidateHashResponse : ValidateHashResponse<TValidateHashResponse, TResponse>, new()
where TResponse : Response<TResponse>
{
public static TValidateHashResponse instance = new TValidateHashResponse();
private static string name = Response<TResponse>.Name;
protected ValidateHashResponse() : base(name) {}
}
protected class HashValidatedResponse : ValidateHashResponse<HashValidatedResponse, HashValidated>
{
public override ActionResult GenerateView(Response response)
{
PasswordChangeModel model = new PasswordChangeModel();
model.PasswordResetHash = ((HashValidated) response).passwordResetHash;
return new ActionResult("~/Areas/Public/Views/ResetPassword/PasswordChangeForm.cshtml", model);
}
}
protected class InvalidHashResponse : ValidateHashResponse<InvalidHashResponse, InvalidHash>
{
public override ActionResult GenerateView(Response response)
{
GenericActionModel responseModel = new GenericActionModel(true, "/Login", "Login", "You have submitted an invalid password reset link.", false);
return new ActionResult("~/Views/Shared/GenericAction.cshtml", responseModel);
}
}
protected class PasswordResetHashExpiredResponse : ValidateHashResponse<PasswordResetHashExpiredResponse, PasswordResetHashExpired>
{
public override ActionResult GenerateView(Response response)
{
GenericActionModel responseModel = new GenericActionModel(true, "/ResetPassword", "Reset Password", "You have submitted an expired password reset link. You must reset your password again to change it.", false);
return new ActionResult("~/Views/Shared/GenericAction.cshtml", responseModel);
}
}
protected class DefaultResponse : ValidateHashResponses
{
public static DefaultResponse instance = new DefaultResponse();
private DefaultResponse() : base("Default") {}
public override ActionResult GenerateView(Response response)
{
GenericActionModel responseModel = new GenericActionModel(true, "/", "Home", "An unknown error has occured. The system administrator has been notified. Error code:" + response.name, false);
return new ActionResult("~/Views/Shared/GenericAction.cshtml", responseModel);
}
}
}
Implementing the SampleController:
public class SampleController
{
private IUserManager _userManager;
public ActionResult ValidateResetHash(string passwordResetHash)
{
Response result = this._userManager.IsValidPasswordResetHash(passwordResetHash);
var resultType = ValidateHashResponses.TrySelect(result.name,ValidateHashResponses.Default);
return resultType.GenerateView(result);
}
}
Tweak the code above to fit your situation.
If you want to allow others to extend the ValidateHashResponses enum, you can make the constructor protected instead of private. They can then extend ValidateHashResponses and add their own additional enum values.
The point of using the subclassable enum, it to take adavantage of the TrySelect method that resolves responses to a specific enum value. Then we call the GenerateView method on the enum value to generate a view.
Another benefit of the enum is that if you need to have other decisions made based on the enum value, you simply add another abstract method to the enum and all value definitions will be forced to implement the new abstract method, unlike traditional enum/switch statement combinations where new enum values are not required to have cases added and where one may forget to revisit all of the switch statements where the enum was used.
DISCLAIMER:
I'm am the author of the AtomicStack project. Feel free to take the Subclassable enum class code from the project if you feel it would suit your needs.
UPDATE:
If you want to inject the response enum, you should create an IResponseHandler adapter interface with a GenerateViewForResponse type method and provide a concrete implementation that consumes the ValidateHashResponses enum.