I'm using DjangoModelFactory to create custom objects needed for tests. The issue is that I would like to write test for situation where there is a request for nonexistent object. Is there any elegant way to automatically generate such ID. One idea I have had was to use really big number, as test suite should never reach such number. Another idea is to create object, store ID and then delete the object. Both those solutions are somewhat hacky - firs has rather risky assumption that the big number will not be assigned as ID as part of tests, the other is based on additional logic which makes tests more dependent on non-related logic. Is there any simple and out-of-the box solution to get id which is not assigned to any object?
Related
A repository pattern is there to abstract away the actual data source and I do see a lot of benefits in that, but a repository should not use IQueryable to prevent leaking DB information and it should always return domain objects, not DTO's or POCO's, and it is this last thing I have trouble with getting my head around.
If a repository pattern always has to return a domain object, doesn't that mean it fetches way too much data most of the times? Lets say it returns an employee domain object with forty properties and in the service and view layers consuming that object only five of those properties are actually used.
It means the database has fetched a lot of unnecessary data a pumped that across the network. Doing that with one object is hardly noticeable, but if millions of records are pushed across that way and a lot of of the data is thrown away every time, is that not considered bad behavior?
Yes, when adding or editing or deleting the object, you will use the entire object, but reading the entire object and pushing it to another layer which uses only a fraction of it is not utilizing the underline database and network in the most optimal way. What am I missing here?
There's nothing preventing you from having a separate read model (which could a separately stored projection of the domain or a query-time projection) and separating out the command and query concerns - CQRS.
If you then put something like GraphQL in front of your read side then the consumer can decide exactly what data they want from the full model down to individual field/property level.
Your commands still interact with the full domain model as before (except where it's a performance no-brainer to use set based operations).
Quick terminology question that's somewhat related to my main question: What is the correct term for a model class and the term for a instance of that class?
I am learning Test Driven Development, and want to make sure I am learning it the right so I can form good habits.
My current project has a SalesmanController, which is pretty much a basic resource controller. Here's my current issue (I can get it working, but I want to make sure its done as "right" as possible)
I have a 'Salesman' model.
The 'Salesman' is mapped as having many 'Sales' using my ORM.
The 'Sales' model is mapped as belongsTo 'Salesman' using my ORM.
I have created a ORMSalesmanRepository which implements the SalesmanRepositoryInterface.
My controller has SalesmanRepositoryInterface passed to it upon construction(constructor dependency injection).
My controller calls the find method on the SalesmanRepositoryInterface implementation it has been given to find the correct salesman.
My view needs information on the salesman and information on all 'Sales' records that belong to him.
The current implementation of SalesmanRepositoryInterface returns an instance of a ORMRecord, and then passes that to the view, which retrieves the sales from the ORMRecord.
My gut tells me this implementation is wrong. The orm record implements Array Access, so it still behaves like an array as far as the view knows.
However, when trying to go back and implement my unit tests I am running into issues mocking my dependencies. (I now know with TDD I'm supposed to make my unit tests and then develop the actual implementation, didn't figure this out till recently).
Salesman = MockedSalesman;
SalesRecords = MockedSalesman->Sales;
Is it poor programming to expect my Salesman to return a ORMObject for the controller to use (for chaining relationships maybe?) or is a controller becoming to 'fat' if I'm allowing it to call more than just basic get methods (using arrayaccess []) on the ORMObject? Should the controller just assume that whatever it gets back is an array (or at least acts like one?)
Also, should it ever come up where something one of my mocked classes returns needs to be mocked again?
Thanks in advance everybody.
What is the correct term for a model class and the term for a instance of that class?
Depends on what you mean with "model classes"? Technically model is a layer, that contains several groups of classes. Most notable ones would be: mappers, services an domain objects. Domain objects as whole are implementation of accumulated knowledge about business requirements, insight from specialists and project goals. This knowledge is referred to as "domain model".
Basically, there is no such thing as "model class". There are classes that are part of model.
What is the controller allowed to assume about what it recieves from a service?
Nothing, because controller should not receive anything from model layer. The responsibility of controller is to alter the state of model layer (and in rare cases - state of current view).
Controller is NOT RESPONSIBLE for:
gather data from model layer,
initializing views
passing data from model layer to views
dealing with authorization checks
The current implementation of SalesmanRepositoryInterface returns an instance of a ORMRecord, and then passes that to the view, which retrieves the sales from the ORMRecord.
It sounds like you are implementing active record pattern. It has very limited use-case, where is is appropriate to use AR - when object mostly consists of getters and setters tht are directly stored in a single table. For anything beyond that active record becomes an anti-pattern because it violates SRP and you loose the ability to test your domain logic without database.
Also, are repository should be returning an instance of domain object and makes sure that you are not retrieving data repeatedly. Repositories are not factories for active record instances.
Is it poor programming to expect my Salesman to return a ORMObject for the controller to use (for chaining relationships maybe?) or is a controller becoming to 'fat' if I'm allowing it to call more than just basic get methods (using arrayaccess []) on the ORMObject?
Yes, it's bad code. Your application logic (one that would usually be contained in services) is leaking in the presentation layer.
At this stage I wouldn't stress too much about your implementation - if you try and write proper tests, you'll quickly find out what works and what doesn't.
The trick is to think hard about what each component is trying to achieve. What is your controller method supposed to do? Most likely it is intended to create a ViewModel of some kind, and then choose which View to render. So there's a few tests right there:
When I call my controller method with given arguments (ShowSalesmanDetail(5))
It should pick the correct View to render ('ShowSalesmanDetail')
It should construct the ViewModel that I expect (A Salesman object with some Sales)
In theory, at this point you don't care how the controller constructs the model, only that it does. In practice though you do need to care, because the controller has dependencies (the big one being the database), which you need to cater for. You've chosen to abstract this with a Repository class that talks to an ORM, but that shouldn't impact the purpose of your tests (though it will definitely alter how you implement those tests).
Ideally the Salesman object in your example would be a regular class, with no dependencies of its own. This way, your repository can construct a Salesman object by populating it from the database/ORM, and your unit tests can also use Salesman objects that you've populated yourself with test data. You shouldn't need to mock your models or data classes.
My personal preference is that you don't take your 'data entities' (what you get back from your ORM) and put them into Views. I would construct a ViewModel class that is tied to one View, and then map from your data entities to your ViewModel. In your example, you might have a Salesman class which represents the data in the database, then a SalesmanModel which represents the information you are displaying on the page (which is usually a subset of what's in the db).
So you might end up with a unit test looking something like this:
public void CallingShowSalesmanShouldReturnAValidModel()
{
ISalesmanRepository repository = A.Fake<ISalesmanRepository>();
SalesmanController controller = new SalesmanController(repository);
const int salesmanId = 5;
Salesman salesman = new Salesman
{
Id = salesmanId,
Name = "Joe Bloggs",
Address = "123 Sesame Street",
Sales = new[]
{
new Sale { OrderId = 123, SaleDate = DateTime.Now.AddMonths(-1) }
}
};
A.CallTo(() => repository.Find(salesmanId)).Returns(salesman);
ViewResult result = controller.ShowSalesman(salesmanId) as ViewResult;
SalesmanModel model = result.Model as SalesmanModel;
Assert.AreEqual(salesman.Id, model.Id);
Assert.AreEqual(salesman.Name, model.Name);
SaleModel saleModel = model.Sales.First();
Assert.AreEqual(salesman.Sales.First().OrderId, saleModel.OrderId);
}
This test is by no means ideal but hopefully gives you an idea of the structure. For reference, the A.Fake<> and A.CallTo() stuff is from FakeItEasy, you could replace that with your mocking framework of choice.
If you were doing proper TDD, you wouldn't have started with the Repository - you'd have written your Controller tests, probably got them passing, and then realised that having all this ORM/DB code in the controller is a bad thing, and refactored it out. The same approach should be taken for the Repository itself and so on down the dependency chain, until you run out of things that you can mock (the ORM layer most likely).
I'm new to symfony2 and doctrine.
here is the problem as I see it.
i cannot use :
$repository = $this->getDoctrine()->getRepository('entity');
$my_object = $repository->findOneBy($index);
on an object that is persisted, BUT NOT FLUSHED YET !!
i think getRepository read from DB, so it will not find a not-flushed object.
my question: how to read those objects that are persisted (i think they are somewhere in a "doctrine session") to re-use them before i do flush my entire batch ?
every profile has 256 physical plumes.
every profile has 1 plumeOptions record assigned to it.
In plumeOptions, I have a cartridgeplume which is a FK for PhysicalPlume.
every plume is identified by ID (auto-generated) and an INDEX (user-generated).
rule: I say profile 1 has physical_plume_index number 3 (=index) connected to it.
now, I want to copy a profile with all its related data to another profile.
new profile is created. New 256 plumes are created and copied from older profile.
i want to link the new profile to the new plume index 3.
check here: http://pastebin.com/WFa8vkt1
I think you might want to have a look at this function:
$entityManager->getUnitOfWork()->getScheduledEntityInsertions()
Gives you back a list of entity objects which are persisting yet.
Hmm, I didn't really read your question well, with the above you will retrieve a full list (as an array) but you cannot query it like with getRepository. I will try found something for u..
I think you might look at the problem from the wrong angle. Doctrine is your persistance layer and database access layer. It is the responsibility of your domain model to provide access to objects once they are in memory. So the problem boils down to how do you get a reference to an object without the persistance layer?
Where do you create the object you need to get hold of later? Can the method/service that create the object return a reference to the controller so it can propagate it to the other place you need it? Can you dispatch an event that you listen to elsewhere in your application to get hold of the object?
In my opinion, Doctrine should be used at the startup of the application (as early as possible), to initialize the domain model, and at the shutdown of the application, to persist any changes to the domain model during the request. To use a repository to get hold of objects in the middle of a request is, in my opinion, probably a code smell and you should look at how the application flow can be refactored to remove that need.
Your is a business logic problem effectively.
Querying down the Database a findby Query on Object that are not flushed yet, means heaving much more the DB layer querying object that you have already in your function scope.
Also Keep in mind a findOneBy will retrieve also other object previously saved with same features.
If you need to find only among those new created objects, you should make f.e. them in a Session Array Variable, and iterate them with the foreach.
If you need a mix of already saved items + some new items, you should threate the 2 parts separately, one with a foreach , other one with the repository query!
I've got a quick question regarding the use of repositories. But the best way to ask is to show a bit of pseudocode and you guys tell me what the result should be
Get a record from the repository with ID of 1 (assume it exists)
Edit a couple of properties
Query the repository again for an item with ID of 1
Result = ??
Should I get the object with updated values or the object without (original state), bearing in mind that since updating the values of properties (step 2) I have not told the repository to update this record.
I think I should get a copy of the original item and not a reference to the edited version.
Please tell me what is correct.
Cheers
The repository pattern is suppose to act like a collection of your objects, so ideally I think it should return the same object instance which would have the updates in it.
Generally there is an identity map somewhere so your repositories can keep track of what has already been loaded. With an identity map, when you fetch an object with the same Id you should always get the already loaded object back regardless of how many times. This is how all more sophisticated ORMs work and is generally a good practice. An identity map helps keep things in sync while you are in the same transaction and saves you some data access.
NHibernate's session has an identity map it keeps track of so you don't have to worry about trying to implement your own in your repositories. Also I believe you can use NHibernate's stateless session if you want to load another instance without change tracking, but I'm not positive on that.
Judging from your past questions I'm assuming you are using LINQ/C#?
If you are using a DataContext and you haven't called SubmitChanges() then you should get back the original unchanged object.
Just tested it. I was wrong, you get back the changed object.
If you set ObjectTrackingEnabled = false on the DataContext you will get the unchanged object.
I'm taking over a project and wanted to understand if this is common practice using SOAP. The process that is currently in place I have to query all the values before I do an update cause I need to pass back all the values that are not being updated. Does this sound right?
Example Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:222-555-1212
So if I just wanted to update the phone number I need to query for the record, get all the values and submit these values for an update.
Example Update Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:111-555-1212
I just want to know if this is common practice or should I change the functionality of this?
This is not specific to SOAP. It may simply be how the service is designed. In general, there will be fields that can only be updated if you have the original value: you can't add one to a field unless you know the original value, for instance. The service seems to have been designed for the general case.
I don't think that it is a very "common" practice. However I've seen cases where the old values are posted together with the new values, in order to validate that noone else has updated the values in the meantime.