It's a dummy project and mainly I want to focus on the 'Layered Architecture'. I followed this architecture from somewhere else. Here I want to bring some 'Post' from the database. so this is my Repository:
public class PostRepo
{
private DataAccessLayer.DBPost _DbPostInstance = null;
public List<ModelLayer.PostModel> ListOfPosts = null;
public PostRepo()
{
_DbPostInstance = new DBPost();
}
public List<ModelLayer.PostModel> GetListOfPost()
{
DataTable dtPost = _DbPostInstance.GetPostDataTable();
foreach (DataRow dr in dtPost.Rows)
{
ModelLayer.PostModel postModel = new PostModel();
postModel.id = (int)dr[0];
postModel.postTitle = (string)dr[1];
postModel.postBody = (string)dr[2];
ListOfPosts.Add(postModel);
}
return ListOfPosts;
}
}
and here goes my Buisness Layer:
class PostBiz
{
private RepositoryLayer.PostRepo _postRepo;
public PostBiz()
{
_postRepo = new RepositoryLayer.PostRepo();
}
public List<ModelLayer.PostModel> GetListOfPost()
{
return _postRepo.GetListOfPost();
}
}
Now my question are:
Am I doing totally wrong?
If my procedure is okay, then why I am doing this? What is the main purpose and role of 'Business Layer' over here and what are the advantages I going to get by creating such Business Layer?
I'm not sure what is a best practice in other languages, but in PHP I'm using a lot of Action Domain Responder Modeling as an Architecture. This way the database is 100% abstracted away from my controller and view logic. It looks a bit like you described.
Whenever I want to add a cli script or an API based on business logic, I use the domain instead of the database. This way you don't repeat yourself and you can focus on the business logic instead of how to display or handle input and output.
In a controller where to render html, I only focus on the request and the response. The rest is abstracted away.
In a CLI script, again I focus on input and output and call the same business logic.
In an API, again I focus on input and output and call the same business logic.
This way, whenever business logic should change, all 3 endpoints (html, api and cli) are covered.
Related
I have to unfortunately write Unit Tests for a legacy Sitecore MVC code base where two distinct Sitecore Contexts are called. I understand this comes under Integration Testing but i don't have the option of educating my project Leads on that front. So i have chosen to use FakeDb for emulating Sitecore Instance and NSubstitute for substituting injected Dependencies (can't use any Profilier API Frameworks like MS Fakes, TypeMock etc because of Budget constraints). I am providing the code below:
Method to be UnitTested
public bool DubiousMethod()
{
// This HttpContext call is pain area 1. This gets resolved when i call it using ItemContextSwitcher in Unit Tests.
string currentUrl = HttpContext.Current.Request.RawUrl;
// This Sitecore Context call to Site Name is pain area 2. This gets resolved when Unit Tests are run under SiteContextSwitcher.
string siteName = Sitecore.Context.Site.Name;
return true/False;
}
Unit Test Method
[Fact]
public void DubiousMethodUT()
{
// create a fake site context
var fakeSite = new Sitecore.FakeDb.Sites.FakeSiteContext(
new Sitecore.Collections.StringDictionary
{
{ "name", "website" }, { "database", "web" }, { "rootPath", "/sitecore/content/home" },
{ "contentStartItem", "home"}, {"hostName","https://www.myorignalsiteurl.com"}
});
using (new Sitecore.Sites.SiteContextSwitcher(fakeSite))
{
//DubiousClassObject.DubiousMethod(home) // When Debugging after uncommenting this line i get correct value in **Sitecore.Context.Site.Name**
using (Sitecore.FakeDb.Db db = new Sitecore.FakeDb.Db
{
new Sitecore.FakeDb.DbItem("home") { { "Title", "Welcome!" } ,
new Sitecore.FakeDb.DbItem("blogs") }
})
{
Sitecore.Data.Items.Item home = db.GetItem("/sitecore/content/home");
//bool abc = confBlogUT.IsBlogItem(home);
using (new ContextItemSwitcher(home))
{
string siteName = Sitecore.Context.Site.Name;
var urlOptions = new Sitecore.Links.UrlOptions();
urlOptions.AlwaysIncludeServerUrl = true;
var pageUrl = Sitecore.Links.LinkManager.GetItemUrl(Sitecore.Context.Item, urlOptions);
HttpContext.Current = new HttpContext(new HttpRequest("", pageUrl.Substring(3), ""), new HttpResponse(new StringWriter()));
Assert.False(DubiousClassObject.DubiousMethod(home); //When Debugging after commenting above DubiousMethodCall i get correct value for **HttpContext.Current.Request.RawUrl**
}
}
}
}
As you can observe that when i try to call the method from FakSiteContext then i am getting the correct value for Sitecore.Context.Site.Name however my code breaks when HttpContext.Current.Request.RawUrl is invoked in the method. Opposite happens when i invoke the method from ContextItemSwitcher(FakeItem) context. So far i have not been able to find a way to merge both the Contexts (which i believe is impossible in Sitecore). Can anyone suggest if i run my Unit Tests in an overarching context where i am able to contrl fakeSite Variables as well as FakeItem context variables as well and by extensions any other Sitecore Context calls?
Any help would be appreciated.
I'd recommend to take a look at Unit testing in Sitecore article as it seem to be what you need.
In short - you'll need to do a few adjustments in your code to make it testable:
1) Replace static HttpContext with abstract HttpContextBase (impl. HttpContextWrapper) so that everything can be arranged - DubiousMethod gets an overload that accepts DubiousMethod(HttpContextBase httpContext).
2) As for Sitecore Context data - it has Sitecore.Caching.ItemsContext-bound semantics (as mentioned in the article), so you could cleanup the collection before/after each test to get a sort of isolation between tests.
Alternatively you could bake a similar wrapper for Sitecore.Context as ASP.NET team had done for HttpContext -> HttpContextBase & impl HttpContextWrapper.
As the question states, is there any downside in referencing the service directly in the template as such :
[disabled]="stateService.selectedClient == null || stateService.currentStep == 1"
In my opinion this doesn't seem like good practice and I'd much rather keep a "selectedClient" object in whatever component needs to use it. How can I get the state and store it into local variables, while observing the changes:
example: I want to move from step1 to step2 by changing "currentStep" in the "stateService", however I want the component that keeps "currentStep" ALSO as a local variable to reflect the change in the state?
Is it good practice to reference services in html templates in Angular
2?
I'd generally avoid it. It seems to bring more chaos than good.
Cons:
Coming from OOP background, this approach looks like it breaks the Law of Demeter, but more importantly,
It's no longer MVC, where your controller (Angular2's Component) acts like a mediator between the view and the services.
Like Ced said, what if a call to a service's member is costly and we need to refer to it multiple times in the view?
At the moment my editor of choice (VS Code) does not fully support Angular2 templates; referencing too many things outside of its own Component's scope in a template makes refactoring not fun anymore.
Pros:
Sometimes it looks more elegant (because it saves you 2 lines of code), but trust me, it's not.
How can I get the state and store it into local variables, while
observing the changes
Madhu Ranjan has a good answer to this. I'll just try to make it more complete here for your particular example:
In your StateService, define:
currentStep : Subject<number> = new Subject<number>();
selectedClient: Subject<Client> = new Subject<Client>();
changeStep(nextStep: number){
this.currentStep.next(nextStep);
}
selectClient(client: Client) {
this.selectedClient.next(client);
}
In your Component:
currentStep: number;
constructor(stateService : StateService){
stateService.currentStep.combineLatest(
stateService.selectedClient,
(currStep, client) => {
if (client == null) {
// I'm assuming you are not showing any step here, replace it with your logic
return -1;
}
return currStep;
})
.subscribe(val => {
this.currentStep = val;
});
}
You may try below,
stateService
currentStep : Subject<number> = new Subject<number>();
somestepChangeMethod(){
this.currentStep.next(<set step here to depending on your logic>);
}
component
// use this in template
currentStep: number;
constructor(stateService : stateServiceClass){
stateService.currentStep.subscribe(val => {
this.currentStep = val;
});
}
Hope this helps!!
It is probably not a good idea to expose your subject inside of your state service. Something like this would be better.
StateService
private currentStep: Subject<number> = new Subject<number>();
changeStep(value: number) {
this.currentStep.next(value);
}
get theCurrentStep(): Observable<number> {
this.currentStep.asObservable();
}
Component
currentStep: number;
constructor(private stateService: StateService) {
this.currentStep = this.stateService.theCurrentStep;
}
Template
[disabled]="(currentStep | async) == 1" // Not sure if this part would work
I'm working on an app that requires extracting data from an xml web service, then I want to store that data (images+titles+datetime ...) to display it on my app then select an item and navigate to another page that displays more info about this item.
Is there a detailed tutorial that explains the parsing and storing process clearly (with the threads) because I'm gonna need it a lot for my app.Thanks!
I usually use this method, but didn't always get me what i want:
var doc = XDocument.Load(new StringReader(e.Result));
var items = from c in doc.Descendants("item")
select new RSSitem()
{
Title = c.Element("title").Value,
Photo = c.Element("img").Attribute("src").Value,
Description = c.Element("description").Value,
Link = c.Element("link").Value,
};
ListBoxNews.ItemsSource = items;
Sounds like you are in over your head (based on the vague nature of your question). So I'm offering my advise to get up to speed, so you can get started and ask a question that we can help give a definitive answer to.
With WP7 and .NET you shouldn't really have to do much manual parsing of Web Services. You should be able to add a Service Reference and generate a proxy which will handle this for you. This will also generate business objects for the data returned by your service.
Once you have that done, you can look into Windows Phone Navigation which should help you transition between pages in your application.
To consume web services:
String baseUri = “your service URI";
WebClient wc = new WebClient();
public MainPage()
{
InitializeComponent();
wc.DownloadStringCompleted += new DownloadStringCompletedEventHandler(wc_downloadstringcompleted);
// event handler that will handle the ‘downloadstringsompleted’ event
wc.DownloadStringAsync(new Uri(baseUri));
// this method will download your string URI asynchronously
}
void wc_downloadstringcompleted(Object sender, DownloadStringCompletedEventArgs e)
{
// method will get fired after URI download completes
// writes your every code here
}
To parse the data:
using (XmlReader reader = XmlReader.Create(new StringReader(xmlString)))
{
while (reader.Read())
{
switch (reader.NodeType)
{
case XmlNodeType.Element:
break;
case XmlNodeType.Text:
break;
case XmlNodeType.EndElement:
break;
}
}
}
}
To store in isolated storage: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.isolatedstorage.isolatedstoragesettings%28v=vs.95%29.aspx
For navigation:
NavigationService.Navigate(new Uri("/SecondPage.xaml?msg=" + navigationstring, UriKind.Relative));
I'm sure this is a fairly common situation. I'm using the Spring Security Core plugin and want to create a domain model that has a Person limited to certain roles:
class Workgroup {
Person manager
...
static constraints = {
manager(validator: {mgr ->
// it feels like there should be a more elegant, groovy way of doing this.
def auths = mgr.getAuthorities();
def returny = false
auths.each {
if(it.authority == 'ROLE_MANAGER')
{
returny = true
}
}
return returny
})
}
}
This test fails like a mofo:
void testInvalidManager() {
def nick = new Person(username:'Nick')
def nonManagerRole = new Role(authority:'ROLE_EMPLOYEE')
UserRole.create(nick,nonManagerRole)
def awesome = new Workgroup(name:'mooCows', manager:nick)
mockForConstraintsTests(Workgroup, [awesome])
assertFalse awesome.validate()
assertEquals "validator", awesome.errors["manager"]
}
testInvalidManager Error No signature of method: users.UserRole.save() is applicable for argument types: (java.util.LinkedHashMap) values: [[flush:false, insert:true]] Possible solutions: wait(), any(), wait(long), use([Ljava.lang.Object;), isCase(java.lang.Object), each(groovy.lang.Closure)
groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: users.UserRole.save() is applicable for argument types: (java.util.LinkedHashMap) values: [[flush:false, insert:true]]
Possible solutions: wait(), any(), wait(long), use([Ljava.lang.Object;), isCase(java.lang.Object), each(groovy.lang.Closure)
at users.UserRole.create(UserRole.groovy:32)
at users.UserRole.create(UserRole.groovy)
at users.UserRole$create.call(Unknown Source)
at users.WorkgroupTests.testInvalidManager(WorkgroupTests.groovy:17)
Is this better covered in Integration than Unit Testing? Do I need to mock UserRole (if so, how?)? How are these types of tests normally done?
UserRole.create() calls save(), so you need to use mockDomain() instead of just mockForConstraintsTests().
But that's only if you're ok with testing the domain model with mocks, which I would never do. The mocking support in Grails should be used when testing Controllers or other classes that use domain classes but shouldn't be bothered with real persistence, creating a database (even in-memory), etc. By removing that dependency you're concentrating on the current tier, trusting that the other tier is already properly tested. But when you use mocking to test domain classes, you're really just testing the mocking framework. So I always use integration tests for domain classes so they run against a real database.
To answer the implicit question from your code example, I'd write the constraint as
static constraints = {
manager validator: { mgr ->
mgr.authorities.find { it.authority == 'ROLE_MANAGER' } != null
}
}
The issue with its bulk is that you're using each() when a regular for loop would be preferable since you can return from a for loop. Use each() only when you really want to invoke the closure on every instance. Here's one that's less groovy than the other one but uses a for loop:
static constraints = {
manager validator: { mgr ->
for (auth in mgr.getAuthorities()) {
if (it.authority == 'ROLE_MANAGER') {
return true
}
}
return false
}
}
BaseControllerTest.PrepareController is enough for controller properties setup, such as PropertyBag and Context
[TestClass]
public ProjectsControllerTest : BaseControllerTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void List()
{
// Setup
var controller = new ProjectsController();
PrepareController(controller);
controller.List();
// Asserts ...
Assert.IsInstanceOfType(typeof(IEnumerable<Project>),controller.PropertyBag["Projects"]);
}
}
But now to run the entire pipeline for integration testing, including filters declared in action attributes?
EDIT:
I'm not interested in view rendering, just the controller logic along with declarative filters.
I like the idea of moving significant amount of view setup logic into action filters, and i'm not sure if i need extra level of integration tests, or is it better done with Selenium?
you can get a hold of the filters, and run them.
so, assuming action is Action<YourController>, and controller is an instance of the controller under test,
var filtersAttributes = GetFiltersFor(controller); // say by reflecting over its attributes
var filters = filtersAttributes
.OrderBy(attr => attr.ExecutionOrder)
.Select(attr => new { Attribute = attr, Instance =
(IFilter)Container.Resolve(attr.FilterType) }); // assuming you use IoC, otherwise simply new the filter type with Activator.CreateInstance or something
Action<ExecuteWhen> runFilters = when =>
{
// TODO: support IFilterAttributeAware filters
foreach (var filter in filters)
if ((filter.Attribute.When & when) != 0)
filter.Instance.Perform(when, Context, controller, controllerContext);
};
// Perform the controller action, including the before- and after-filters
runFilters(ExecuteWhen.BeforeAction);
action(controller);
runFilters(ExecuteWhen.AfterAction);
Getting the view-engine to play is trickier (though possible), but I think that testing generated views along with the controller logic is involving way too many moving and incur unjustified maintenance effort