I'm trying to write some tests for a class using NSubstitute.
Class constructor is:
public class ClassToTest : IClassToTest
{
private IDataBase DB;
public ClassToTest(IDatabase DB)
{
this.DB = DB;
this.DB.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false;
}
Here is my UnitTests class:
[TestFixture]
public class ClassToTestUnitTests
{
private ClassToTest _testClass;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
var Db = Substitute.For<IDatabase>();
//Db.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false; <- I've tried to do it like this
var dummyData = Substitute.For<DbSet<Data>, IQueryable<Data>, IDbAsyncEnumerable<Data>>().SetupData(GetData());
Db.Data.Returns(dummyData);
_testClass = new ClassToTest(Db);
}
Whenever I try to test some method, the test fails and there is a NullReferenceException and it goes in StackTrace to the SetUp method.
When I commented out the
this.DB.Configuration.AutoDetectChangesEnabled = false; in ClassToTest constructor the tests work fine.
Edit:
public interface IInventoryDatabase
{
DbSet<NamesV> NamesV { get; set; }
DbSet<Adress> Adresses { get; set; }
DbSet<RandomData> Randomdata { get; set; }
// (...more DbSets)
System.Data.Entity.Database Database { get; }
DbContextConfiguration Configuration { get; }
int SaveChanges();
}
The reason for the NullReferenceException is that NSubstitute cannot automatically substitute for DbContextConfiguration (it can only do so for purely virtual classes).
Normally we could work around this by manually configuration this property, something like Db.Configuration.Returns(myConfiguration), but in this case DbContextConfiguration does not seem to have a public constructor so we are unable to create an instance for myConfiguration.
At this stage I can think of two main options: wrap the problematic class in a more testable adapter class; or switch to testing this at a different level. (My preference is the latter which I'll explain below.)
The first option involves something like this:
public interface IDbContextConfiguration {
bool AutoDetectChangesEnabled { get; set; }
// ... any other required members here ...
}
public class DbContextConfigurationAdapter : IDbContextConfiguration {
DbContextConfiguration config;
public DbContextConfigurationAdapter(DbContextConfiguration config) {
this.config = config;
}
public bool AutoDetectChangedEnabled {
get { return config.AutoDetectChangedEnabled; }
set { config = value; }
}
}
Then updating IInventoryDatabase to using the more testable IDbContextConfiguration type. My opposition to this approach is that it can end up requiring a lot of work for something that should be fairly simple. This approach can be very useful for cases where we have behaviours that make sense to be grouped under a logical interface, but for working with an AutoDetectChangedEnabled property this seems unnecessary work.
The other option is to test this at a different level. I think the friction in testing the current code is that we are trying to substitute for details of Entity Framework, rather than interfaces we've created for partitioning the logical details of our app. Search for "don't mock types you don't own" for more information on why this can be a problem (I've written about it before here).
One example of testing at a different level is to switch to an in-memory database for testing this part of the code. This will tell you much more valuable information: given a known state of the test database, you are demonstrating the queries return the expected information. This is in contrast to a test showing we are calling Entity Framework in the way we think is required.
To combine this approach with mocking (not necessarily required!), we can create a higher level interface and substitute for that for testing our application code, then make an implementation of that interface and test that using the in-memory database. We have then divided the application into two parts that we can test independently: first that our app uses data from the data access interface correctly, and secondly that our implementation of that interface works as expected.
So that would give us something like this:
public interface IAppDatabase {
// These members just for example. Maybe instead of something general like
// `GetAllNames()` we have operations specific to app operations such as
// `UpdateAddress(Guid id, Address newAddress)`, `GetNameFor(SomeParams p)` etc.
Task<List<Name>> GetAllNames();
Task<Address> LookupAddress(Guid id);
}
public class AppDatabase : IAppDatabase {
// ...
public AppDatabase(IInventoryDatabase db) { ... }
public Task<List<Name>> GetAllNames() {
// use `db` and Entity Framework to retrieve data...
}
// ...
}
The AppDatabase class we test with an in-memory database. The rest of the app we test with respect to a substitute IAppDatabase.
Note that we can skip the mocking step here by using the in-memory database for all relevant tests. Using mocking may be easier than setting up all the required data in the database, or may make tests run faster. Or maybe not -- I suggest considering both options.
Hope this helps.
Abstract view: I want to pass information from one layer to another (note: when there's a better title for this thread let me know).
I have a ViewModel which communications with my Views and my Service layer.
And I have a Service layer communication with my persistence layer.
Let's assume I have the following classes:
public class EmployeeViewModel()
{
// The following properties are binded to my View (bidirectional communication)
public Firstname ...
public Lastname ...
public Email ...
public void PerformingSearch()
{
...
EmployeeService.Search(...);
...
}
}
public class EmployeeService()
{
public List<Employee> Search(...)
{
// Searching in db
}
}
What is best practice to hand over the data from my ViewModel to my Service layer (e. g. for performing a search)?
I see a few options (ViewModel perspective):
EmployeeService.Search(Firstname, Lastname, Email);
EmployeeService.Search(employeeSearchModel); // In this case I would need another model. How should the model be instantiated?
EmployeeService.Search(this); // Convertion has to be done somewhere
Is there any design pattern for this problem? How is it called? What option is best? Did I miss anything?
Describing your problem space
Your particular example tells me that your current architecture contains a service layer that sort of acts as a proxy to your data access layer. Without more in-depth knowledge of your architecture I would suggest a possible solution to keep it simple as much as your environment allows.
Now let's try to pick a strategy to get a possible solution model.
Your user story sounds like: "a user submits information to obtain a list of employees".
Your current use-case simplified:
UI: submits some information that you need to serve;
VM: receives the search terms and passes it next to the service layer;
SL: sends the received data to Data Access Layer (and maybe updates the response values to VM properties);
DAL: looks up information in persistence store and returns the obtained values.
A refactored use-case example:
VM: invokes a query with the needed values encapsulated and set the properties to display in the UI.
Looks easier right?
Enter: Command Query Separation
In short CQS:
States that every method should either be a command that performs
an action, or a query that returns data to the caller, but not both.
In your particular case we need to focus on queries, where:
Queries: Return a result and do not change the observable state of the system (are free of side effects).
But how does this help you? Let's see.
A very good and detailed explanation of CQS query-side can be read fully at the "Meanwhile... on the query side of my architecture" blog post from Steven.
Query concept applied to your problem
Defining an interface for the query object
public interface IQuery<TResult> {}
The query handler definition:
public interface IQueryHandler<TQuery, TResult> where TQuery : IQuery<TResult>
{
TResult Handle(TQuery query);
}
Now here is an implementation of your "search" query object. This is effectively the answer for your "how to pass information" question :
public class FindEmployeeBySearchTextQuery : IQuery<Employee>
{
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
public string Email { get; set; }
}
And last a query handler that you will pass in your query object:
public class FindEmployeeBySearchTextQueryHandler
: IQueryHandler<FindEmployeeBySearchTextQuery, List<Employee>>
{
private readonly IDbContext db;
public FindEmployeeBySearchTextQueryHandler(IDbContext db)
{
this.db = db;
}
public List<Employee> Handle(FindEmployeeBySearchTextQuery query)
{
return (
from employee in this.db.employees
where employee.FirstName.Contains(query.FirstName) ||
employee.LastName.Contains(query.LastName) ||
employee.Email == query.Email
select employee )
.ToList();
}
}
Note: this Handle() example implementation uses Entity Frameworks' IDbContext, you have got to rework/modify this according to your needs (ADO.NET, NHibernate, etc.).
And finally in your view model:
public class EmployeeViewModel()
{
private readonly IQueryHandler _queryHandler;
public EmployeeViewModel(IQueryHandler queryHandler)
{
_queryHandler = queryHandler;
}
public void PerformingSearch()
{
var query = new FindEmployeeBySearchTextQuery
{
FirstName = "John",
LastName = "Doe",
Email = "stack#has.been.over.flowed.com"
};
List<Employee> employees = _queryHandler.Handle(query);
// .. Do further processing of the obtained data
}
}
This example assumes that you are using Dependency Injection.
You get IQueryHandler implementation injected into your view models constructor and later work with the received implementation.
Using this approach your code becomes cleaner, more use-case driven and will have better isolation of responsibilities which you can easily test and decorate with further cross-cutting concerns.
I am not sure where/how to search for this question so I thought asking the comminuty of stackoverflow is the best bet.
Basically I am designing a Project which will simply provide a logic project access to a LINQ to SQL model to perform CRUD on a database. So within the Data project I have the LINQ to SQL model class and a C# class to provide access to the Model as shown below
public class Connection : IDisposable
{
private DataModelDataContext _model;
public DataModelDataContext model
{
get { return _model; }
set { throw new Exception("Object \"model\" is not allowed to be created outside of its container class", new NotSupportedException()); }
}
public Connection(string username, string password)
{
User u = _model.Users.Where(u => u.Username == username && u.password == u.Password);
if (u == null)
throw new ApplicationException("User credentials are invalid", new AuthenticationException());
_model = new DataModelDataContext();
}
public void refreshAndKeepChanges(object entity)
{
_model.Refresh(RefreshMode.OverwriteCurrentValues, entity);
}
public int getChangesCount()
{
return _model.GetChangeSet().Deletes.Count() + _model.GetChangeSet().Inserts.Count() + _model.GetChangeSet().Updates.Count();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_model.SubmitChanges();
_model.Dispose();
}
}
What I want is, when I compile the DLL is for the Logic project to have access to the Connection class (above) but not the DataModelDataContext (as this would defeat the object of passing user credentials).
My question is how can expose the Connection class (as public which I have already done) but hide LINQ to SQL data model from the DLL but allow the Connection class access to it???
using an extra namespace for the LINQ to SQL model does not work, i have found adding the DLL allows access to all the namespaces within the project.
Just change the model property to be internal, along with the DataModelDataContext class (which is probably done by editing the DBML, either in the designer or by hand). It's fine for the Connection class to know about internal classes - it just can't expose them publicly.
As a couple of asides:
If the model setter is never going to be functional, why have it at all? Just get rid of it.
You should start following the .NET naming conventions
You change public DataModelDataContext model to either
internal DataModelDataContext model
if you want it to be "public within that assembly, but private to all other assemblies"
protected DataModelDataContext model
or
private DataModelDataContext model
if you don't want to expose DataModelDataContext to other classes in that assembly.
Most likely you want it as internal.
The term you can search for (or read more directly on MSDN) is Access Modifiers.
I'm new to DDD, and I'm trying to apply it in real life. There is no questions about such validation logic, as null check, empty strings check, etc - that goes directly to entity constructor/property. But where to put validation of some global rules like 'Unique user name'?
So, we have entity User
public class User : IAggregateRoot
{
private string _name;
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set { _name = value; }
}
// other data and behavior
}
And repository for users
public interface IUserRepository : IRepository<User>
{
User FindByName(string name);
}
Options are:
Inject repository to entity
Inject repository to factory
Create operation on domain service
???
And each option more detailed:
1 .Inject repository to entity
I can query repository in entities constructor/property. But I think that keeping reference to repository in entity is a bad smell.
public User(IUserRepository repository)
{
_repository = repository;
}
public string Name
{
get { return _name; }
set
{
if (_repository.FindByName(value) != null)
throw new UserAlreadyExistsException();
_name = value;
}
}
Update: We can use DI to hide dependency between User and IUserRepository via Specification object.
2. Inject repository to factory
I can put this verification logic in UserFactory. But what if we want to change name of already existing user?
3. Create operation on domain service
I can create domain service for creating and editing users. But someone can directly edit name of user without calling that service...
public class AdministrationService
{
private IUserRepository _userRepository;
public AdministrationService(IUserRepository userRepository)
{
_userRepository = userRepository;
}
public void RenameUser(string oldName, string newName)
{
if (_userRepository.FindByName(newName) != null)
throw new UserAlreadyExistException();
User user = _userRepository.FindByName(oldName);
user.Name = newName;
_userRepository.Save(user);
}
}
4. ???
Where do you put global validation logic for entities?
Thanks!
Most of the times it is best to place these kind of rules in Specification objects.
You can place these Specifications in your domain packages, so anybody using your domain package has access to them. Using a specification, you can bundle your business rules with your entities, without creating difficult-to-read entities with undesired dependencies on services and repositories. If needed, you can inject dependencies on services or repositories into a specification.
Depending on the context, you can build different validators using the specification objects.
Main concern of entities should be keeping track of business state - that's enough of a responsibility and they shouldn't be concerned with validation.
Example
public class User
{
public string Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
Two specifications:
public class IdNotEmptySpecification : ISpecification<User>
{
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User subject)
{
return !string.IsNullOrEmpty(subject.Id);
}
}
public class NameNotTakenSpecification : ISpecification<User>
{
// omitted code to set service; better use DI
private Service.IUserNameService UserNameService { get; set; }
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User subject)
{
return UserNameService.NameIsAvailable(subject.Name);
}
}
And a validator:
public class UserPersistenceValidator : IValidator<User>
{
private readonly IList<ISpecification<User>> Rules =
new List<ISpecification<User>>
{
new IdNotEmptySpecification(),
new NameNotEmptySpecification(),
new NameNotTakenSpecification()
// and more ... better use DI to fill this list
};
public bool IsValid(User entity)
{
return BrokenRules(entity).Count() == 0;
}
public IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(User entity)
{
return Rules.Where(rule => !rule.IsSatisfiedBy(entity))
.Select(rule => GetMessageForBrokenRule(rule));
}
// ...
}
For completeness, the interfaces:
public interface IValidator<T>
{
bool IsValid(T entity);
IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(T entity);
}
public interface ISpecification<T>
{
bool IsSatisfiedBy(T subject);
}
Notes
I think Vijay Patel's earlier answer is in the right direction, but I feel it's a bit off. He suggests that the user entity depends on the specification, where I belief that this should be the other way around. This way, you can let the specification depend on services, repositories and context in general, without making your entity depend on them through a specification dependency.
References
A related question with a good answer with example: Validation in a Domain Driven Design.
Eric Evans describes the use of the specification pattern for validation, selection and object construction in chapter 9, pp 145.
This article on the specification pattern with an application in .Net might be of interest to you.
I would not recommend disallowing to change properties in entity, if it's a user input.
For example, if validation did not pass, you can still use the instance to display it in user interface with validation results, allowing user to correct the error.
Jimmy Nilsson in his "Applying Domain-Driven Design and Patterns" recommends to validate for a particular operation, not just for persisting. While an entity could be successfully persisted, the real validation occurs when an entity is about to change it's state, for example 'Ordered' state changes to 'Purchased'.
While creating, the instance must be valid-for-saving, which involves checking for uniqueness. It's different from valid-for-ordering, where not only uniqueness must be checked, but also, for example, creditability of a client, and availability at the store.
So, validation logic should not be invoked on a property assignments, it should be invoked upon aggregate level operations, whether they are persistent or not.
Edit: Judging from the other answers, the correct name for such a 'domain service' is specification. I've updated my answer to reflect this, including a more detailed code sample.
I'd go with option 3; create a domain service specification which encapsulates the actual logic that performs the validation. For example, the specification initially calls a repository, but you could replace it with a web service call at a later stage. Having all that logic behind an abstract specification will keep the overall design more flexible.
To prevent someone from editing the name without validating it, make the specification a required aspect of editing the name. You can achieve this by changing the API of your entity to something like this:
public class User
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public void SetName(string name, ISpecification<User, string> specification)
{
// Insert basic null validation here.
if (!specification.IsSatisfiedBy(this, name))
{
// Throw some validation exception.
}
this.Name = name;
}
}
public interface ISpecification<TType, TValue>
{
bool IsSatisfiedBy(TType obj, TValue value);
}
public class UniqueUserNameSpecification : ISpecification<User, string>
{
private IUserRepository repository;
public UniqueUserNameSpecification(IUserRepository repository)
{
this.repository = repository;
}
public bool IsSatisfiedBy(User obj, string value)
{
if (value == obj.Name)
{
return true;
}
// Use this.repository for further validation of the name.
}
}
Your calling code would look something like this:
var userRepository = IoC.Resolve<IUserRepository>();
var specification = new UniqueUserNameSpecification(userRepository);
user.SetName("John", specification);
And of course, you can mock ISpecification in your unit tests for easier testing.
I’m not an expert on DDD but I have asked myself the same questions and this is what I came up with:
Validation logic should normally go into the constructor/factory and setters. This way you guarantee that you always have valid domain objects. But if the validation involves database queries that impact your performance, an efficient implementation requires a different design.
(1) Injecting Entities: Injecting entities can be technical difficult and also makes managing application performance very hard due to the fragmentation of you database logic. Seemingly simple operations can now have an unexpectedly performance impact. It also makes it impossible to optimize your domain object for operations on groups of the same kind of entities, you no longer can write a single group query, and instead you always have individual queries for each entity.
(2) Injecting repository: You should not put any business logic in repositories. Keep repositories simple and focused. They should act as if they were collections and only contain logic for adding, removing and finding objects (some even spinoff the find methods to other objects).
(3) Domain service This seems the most logical place to handle the validation that requires database querying. A good implementation would make the constructor/factory and setters involved package private, so that the entities can only be created / modified with the domain service.
I would use a Specification to encapsulate the rule. You can then call when the UserName property is updated (or from anywhere else that might need it):
public class UniqueUserNameSpecification : ISpecification
{
public bool IsSatisifiedBy(User user)
{
// Check if the username is unique here
}
}
public class User
{
string _Name;
UniqueUserNameSpecification _UniqueUserNameSpecification; // You decide how this is injected
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set
{
if (_UniqueUserNameSpecification.IsSatisifiedBy(this))
{
_Name = value;
}
else
{
// Execute your custom warning here
}
}
}
}
It won't matter if another developer tries to modify User.Name directly, because the rule will always execute.
Find out more here
In my CQRS Framework, every Command Handler class also contains a ValidateCommand method, which then calls the appropriate business/validation logic in the Domain (mostly implemented as Entity methods or Entity static methods).
So the caller would do like so:
if (cmdService.ValidateCommand(myCommand) == ValidationResult.OK)
{
// Now we can assume there will be no business reason to reject
// the command
cmdService.ExecuteCommand(myCommand); // Async
}
Every specialized Command Handler contains the wrapper logic, for instance:
public ValidationResult ValidateCommand(MakeCustomerGold command)
{
var result = new ValidationResult();
if (Customer.CanMakeGold(command.CustomerId))
{
// "OK" logic here
} else {
// "Not OK" logic here
}
}
The ExecuteCommand method of the command handler will then call the ValidateCommand() again, so even if the client didn't bother, nothing will happen in the Domain that is not supposed to.
in short you have 4 options:
IsValid method: transition an entity to a state (potentially invalid) and ask it to validate itself.
Validation in application services.
TryExecute pattern.
Execute / CanExecute pattern.
read more here
Create a method, for example, called IsUserNameValid() and make that accessible from everywhere. I would put it in the user service myself. Doing this will not limit you when future changes arise. It keeps the validation code in one place (implementation), and other code that depends on it will not have to change if the validation changes You may find that you need to call this from multiple places later on, such as the ui for visual indication without having to resort to exception handling. The service layer for correct operations, and the repository (cache, db, etc.) layer to ensure that stored items are valid.
I like option 3. Simplest implementation could look so:
public interface IUser
{
string Name { get; }
bool IsNew { get; }
}
public class User : IUser
{
public string Name { get; private set; }
public bool IsNew { get; private set; }
}
public class UserService : IUserService
{
public void ValidateUser(IUser user)
{
var repository = RepositoryFactory.GetUserRepository(); // use IoC if needed
if (user.IsNew && repository.UserExists(user.Name))
throw new ValidationException("Username already exists");
}
}
Create domain service
Or I can create domain service for
creating and editing users. But
someone can directly edit name of user
without calling that service...
If you properly designed your entities this should not be an issue.
Are there any ways, besides throwing exceptions, that one can go about using the partial validation methods in LINQ to SQL to cancel the insert of a record?
I can understand that you don't want to throw an exception directly after a property is set with an invalid value. This approach makes it difficult to communicate correctly to the user what actually is wrong. However, I think it's better to keep away from using those partial validation methods. IMO you want to throw an exception when your model is invalid, but only just before you're persisting your model to the database.
I advise you to use a validation framework and integrate it with your LINQ to SQL DataContext class. Here's an example of how to do this with The Enterprise Library Validation Application Block, but the concept will work for every validation framework you pick:
public partial class NorthwindDataContext
{
public override void SubmitChanges(ConflictMode failureMode)
{
ValidationResult[] = this.Validate();
if (invalidResults.Length > 0)
{
// You should define this exception type
throw new ValidationException(invalidResults);
}
base.SubmitChanges(failureMode);
}
private ValidationResult[] Validate()
{
// here we use the Validation Application Block.
return invalidResults = (
from entity in this.GetChangedEntities()
let type = entity.GetType()
let validator = ValidationFactory.CreateValidator(type)
let results = validator.Validate(entity)
where !results.IsValid
from result in results
select result).ToArray();
}
private IEnumerable<object> GetChangedEntities()
{
ChangeSet changes = this.GetChangeSet();
return changes.Inserts.Concat(changes.Updates);
}
}
[Serializable]
public class ValidationException : Exception
{
public ValidationException(IEnumerable<ValidationResult> results)
: base("There are validation errors.")
{
this.Results = new ReadOnlyCollection<ValidationResult>(
results.ToArray());
}
public ReadOnlyCollection<ValidationResult> Results
{
get; private set;
}
}
There are several validation frameworks available, such as DataAnnotations and
the Enterprise Library Validation Application Block (VAB). VAB is very suited for doing this. With LINQ to SQL your entities are generated, so you'll need to use the configuration based approach that VAB offers (don’t try decorating your entities with attributes). By overriding the SubmitChanges method you can make sure the validation gets triggered just before entities are persisted. My SO answers here and here contain useful information about using VAB.
I've written a few interesting articles about integrating VAB with LINQ to SQL here and here. The nice thing about LINQ to SQL (compared to Entity Framework 1.0) is that a lot of useful metadata is generated. When combining this with VAB you can use this metadata to validate your model, without having to hook up every validation manually. Especially validations as maximum string length and not null can be extracted from the model. Read here how to do this.
VAB to the rescue!
Ultimately this indicates that at you last line of defence (before any database constraints, at least) your data was invalid. If you want to do something other than scream loudly, then perhaps verify the data (via any of a multitude of approaches) before adding it to the insert list.
As an additional thought, you could try overriding SubmitChanges (on the data-context); obtain the change-set, verify the inserts and remove (delete-on-submit, which IIRC checks the insert list and drops them) any that you've decided were mistakes. Then call the base.SubmitChanges. But to me this is a bit backwards.
To illustrate, this only does a single insert (not two as requested), but I don't like this approach. At all. As long as we're clear ;-p
namespace ConsoleApplication1 {
partial class DataClasses1DataContext { // extends the generated data-context
public override void SubmitChanges(
System.Data.Linq.ConflictMode failureMode) {
var delta = GetChangeSet();
foreach (var item in delta.Inserts.OfType<IEntityCheck>()) {
if (!item.IsValid()) {
GetTable(item.GetType()).DeleteOnSubmit(item);
}
}
base.SubmitChanges(failureMode);
}
}
public interface IEntityCheck { // our custom basic validation interface
bool IsValid();
}
partial class SomeTable : IEntityCheck { // extends the generated entity
public bool IsValid() { return this.Val.StartsWith("d"); }
}
static class Program {
static void Main() {
using (var ctx = new DataClasses1DataContext()) {
ctx.Log = Console.Out; // report what it does
ctx.SomeTables.InsertOnSubmit(new SomeTable { Val = "abc" });
ctx.SomeTables.InsertOnSubmit(new SomeTable { Val = "def" });
ctx.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
}