How to decouple process in business layer - business-rules

I am facing a problem that, for some business processes the sequence of invoking business objects and methods may change frequently. So I came up with something similar to the below:(Sorry somehow I can't post image..., I tried to express them in the below text)
Business Objects:
Object1, Object2
Methods: M1, M2, M3, M4
Processes: P1 (M1 > M2 > M3), P2 (M2 > M3 > if M3 return true then M4 else end)
In this case I am using .NET 3.5. I create some classes to represent processes, which contains those sequences I mentioned. It works. But the problem is I need to compile every time when process changed. It would be much better if I could configure it by some sort of XML.
I have heard about jBPM for Java, Workflow Foundation for .NET but not sure if they fit my needs, or would they be overkill. I even don't what keyword to search in Google. Could anyone advice what technology I should use to solve this issue? Or just point me to some websites or books? Thanks in advance.

A common way to decouple software layers is by using interfaces as stated by Dependency Inversion Principle. In you case you could abstract the process concept using an interface and implement the logic in the implementation of that interface.
when you need change the logic of the process you can create a new implementation of that interface. You can use any IoC framework to inject what implementation you want to use
below is showed just a simple way to do that:
public interface IMethod
{
void M1();
string M2();
void M3();
void M4();
}
public interface IProcess
{
IMethod Method { get; set; }
void P1();
void P2();
}
public class Process : IProcess
{
public IMethod Method
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
set { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public void P1()
{
Method.M1();
Method.M2();
}
public void P2()
{
if(Method.M2()==string.Empty)
{
Method.M3();
}
}
}
public class AnotherProcess : IProcess
{
public IMethod Method
{
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
set { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public void P1()
{
Method.M4();
}
public void P2()
{
Method.M2();
Method.M4();
}
}
public class UseProcess
{
private IProcess _process;
//you can inject the process dependency if you need use a different implementation
public UseProcess(IProcess process)
{
_process = process;
}
public void DoSomething()
{
_process.P1();
}
}

Related

How to implement the State design pattern?

Let's say I am going to implement (in the C++) following finite state machine consisting of 5 states where the transitions between the states occur based on value of 6 boolean flags. In each of the states only a couple of the total number of the boolean flags is relevant e.g. in the State_A the transition into the State_B is conditional by following condition: flag_01 == true && flag_02 == true and the value of the rest of the flags is irrelevant.
I would like to exploit the State design pattern for implementation of the state machine
I have unfortunately stuck at the very beginning. Namely on definition of the interface of the common base class for all the state subclasses. It seems to me that my situation is little bit different from the examples mentioned in the literature where the state transitions occur based on single events with a guard condition. Can anybody give me an advice how to define the interface for the common base class in my situation where the transitions between states occur based on logic expressions with several operands?
You can create some reducer which will decide what state should be user. Let me show an example via C#.
This is an abstraction of state:
public interface IAtmMachineState
{
void Execute();
}
and its concrete states:
public class WithdrawState : IAtmMachineState
{
public void Execute()
{
Console.WriteLine("You are taking money");
}
}
public class DepositState : IAtmMachineState
{
public void Execute()
{
Console.WriteLine("You are putting money");
}
}
public class SleepState : IAtmMachineState
{
public void Execute()
{
Console.WriteLine("Insert your card");
}
}
and this is context of state:
public class AtmStateContext
{
private IAtmMachineState _currentState;
public AtmStateContext()
{
_currentState = new SleepState();
}
public void SetState(IAtmMachineState currentState)
{
_currentState = currentState;
}
public void Execute()
{
_currentState.Execute();
}
}
And this is a reducer which can take parameters:
public class StateReducer
{
public IAtmMachineState Get(int a, string b)
{
if (a == 0)
return new WithdrawState();
else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(b))
return new DepositState();
return new SleepState();
}
}
And it can be used like this:
AtmStateContext atmState = new AtmStateContext();
StateReducer stateReducer = new StateReducer();
atmState.SetState(stateReducer.Get(1, ""));
atmState.Execute(); // OUTPUT: insert your card

references are a pain for my mocks in TDD

I am new with c++/tdd, embraced gtest/gmock, and fell in love.
One thing kind of puzzles me though. Are reference pointers really the way to go?
I find myself producing a lot of boiler plate injecting all mocks (even when I don't have any business mocking that behavior).
Example:
namespace
{
class set_configuration_command_tests : public testing::Test
{
protected:
void SetUp() override
{
_uart_peripheral = new uart8_peripheral_mock();
_uart = new uart8_mock(*_uart_peripheral);
_logger = new logger_mock(*_uart);
_mqtt_client = new mqtt_client_mock(*_logger);
_set_configuration_command = new set_configuration_command(*_mqtt_cient);
}
void TearDown() override
{
delete _set_configuration_command;
}
uart8_peripheral_mock *_uart_peripheral;
uart8_mock *_uart;
logger_mock *_logger;
mqtt_client_mock *_mqtt_cient;
set_configuration_command *_set_configuration_command;
};
TEST_F(set_configuration_command_tests, execute_update_configuration)
{
// arrange
// act
// assert
}
}
What I rather did here, is create my sut as
_mqtt_client = new mqtt_client_mock(nullptr); // will not compile of course
_set_configuration_command = new set_configuration_command(*_mqtt_cient);
All the other mocks, I don't need in this case.
Is this the drawback of using reference pointers? Or is there a better approach I should follow?
Found a better alternative. Providing interfaces (pure virtual classes) heavily reduces the need to provide an entire tree of mocks.
e.g
class flash_api : public iflash_api
{
public:
flash_api(iflash_peripheral &flash_peripheral) : _flash_peripheral(flash_peripheral)
{
}
virtual ~flash_api()
{
}
}
Before my mock inherited from flash_api directly. When I gave this class an interface too (`iflash_api') I can let my mock inherit from iflash_api, which gives me a parameter-less constructor.
class flash_api_mock : public iflash_api
{
public:
flash_api_mock()
{
}
virtual ~flash_api_mock()
{
}
}
Then I can write my unit test based on the mocks I actually want to give behavior.
class set_configuration_command_tests : public testing::Test
{
protected:
void SetUp() override
{
_mqtt_cient = new mqtt_client_mock();
_flash_api = new flash_api_mock();
_set_configuration_command = new set_configuration_command(*_mqtt_cient, *_flash_api);
}
void TearDown() override
{
delete _set_configuration_command;
}
flash_api_mock *_flash_api;
mqtt_client_mock *_mqtt_cient;
set_configuration_command *_set_configuration_command;
};

Avoid public `SetState()` interface in state pattern implementation in C++

The state pattern
itself is really nice pattern for implementing state machines because it allows to encapsulate state transitions logic in states themselves and adding a new state is actually becomes easier because you need to make changes only in relevant states.
But, it is usually avoided in description how should states be changed.
If you implement state change logic in Context then whole the point of pattern is missed, but if you implement state change logic in states, that means you need to set a new state in Context.
The most common way is to add the public method to Context SetState() and pass reference to Context to the state object, so it will be able to set a new state, but essentially it will allow the user to change state outside the state machine.
To avoid it I came to the following solutions:
class IContext {
public:
virtual void SetState(unique_ptr<IState> newState) = 0;
}
class Context : public IContext {
private:
virtual void SetState(unique_ptr<IState> newState) override { ... };
}
But in general changing the method scope in derived class doesn't look really good.
Is there another way to hide this interface (friend class is not an option because it requires to change the Context class for each state being added)?
You could consider having the handler handle()returning the next state...
class IState {
public:
virtual unique_ptr<IState> handle(Context&) = 0;
};
class StateA : public IState {
private:
// presented inline for simplicity, but should be in .cpp
// because of circular dependency.
//
virtual unique_ptr<IState> handle(Context& ctx) override
{
//...
if (/*...*/)
return make_unique(StateB{});
//... including other state switch..
return { nullptr }; // returning null indicates no state change,
// returning unique_ptr<>(this) is not really an option.
}
};
The goal of the state pattern is to hide/encapsulate different implementations from the caller.However, caller only needs to know what type of implementation it needs.
Not sure how much this helps, but I just implemented a sample state machine in C# that uses the observer pattern and a tiny bit of reflection to get a very clean and encapsulated implementation of the state pattern.
Context.cs:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
public class Context
{
State State { get; set; }
List<State> States { get; }
public Context()
{
States = new()
{
new HappyState(),
new SadState(),
};
SetState<HappyState>();
}
void DoSomething() => State?.DoSomething();
string ReturnSomething() => State?.ReturnSomething();
void SetState<StateType>() where StateType : State => SetState(typeof(StateType));
void SetState(Type stateType)
{
if (!stateType.IsSubclassOf(typeof(State))) return;
var nextState = States.Where(e => e.GetType() == stateType).First();
if (nextState is null) return;
if (State is not null)
{
State?.ExitState();
State.ChangeRequested -= OnChangeRequested;
}
State = nextState;
State.ChangeRequested += OnChangeRequested;
State.EnterState();
}
void OnChangeRequested(Type stateType) => SetState(stateType);
}
State.cs:
using System;
public abstract class State
{
public event Action<Type> ChangeRequested;
protected void SetState<StateType>() where StateType : State
{
ChangeRequested?.Invoke(typeof(StateType));
}
public virtual void EnterState() { }
public virtual void ExitState() { }
public virtual void DoSomething() { }
public virtual string ReturnSomething() => "";
}
You can then use this Syntax in either the Context or any State
SetState<HappyState>();
Link to Repository

Cannot seem to moq EF CodeFirst 4.1.Help anyone?

I have been given the task to evaluate codeFirst and possible to use for all our future projects.
The evaluation is based on using codeFirst with an existing database.
Wondering if it's possible to mock the repository using codeFirst 4.1.(no fakes)
The idea is to inject a repository into a service and moq the repository.
I have been looking on the net but I have only found an example using fakes.I dont want to use fakes I want to use moq.
I think my problem is in the architecture of the DAL.(I would like to use unitOfWork etc.. by I need to show a working moq example)
Below is my attempt(Failed miserably) due to lack of knowledge on Code first 4.1.
I have also uploaded a solution just in case somebody is in good mood and would like to change it.
http://cid-9db5ae91a2948485.office.live.com/browse.aspx/Public%20Folder?uc=1
I am open to suggestions and total modification to my Dal.Ideally using Unity etc.. but I will worry about later.
Most importantly I need to be able to mock it. Without ability to use MOQ we will bin the project using EF 4.1
Failed attempt
//CodeFirst.Tests Project
[TestClass]
public class StudentTests
{
[TestMethod]
public void Should_be_able_to_verify_that_get_all_has_been_called()
{
//todo redo test once i can make a simple one work
//Arrange
var repository = new Mock<IStudentRepository>();
var expectedStudents = new List<Student>();
repository.Setup(x => x.GetAll()).Returns(expectedStudents);
//act
var studentService = new StudentService(repository.Object);
studentService.GetAll();
//assert
repository.Verify(x => x.GetAll(), Times.AtLeastOnce());
}
}
//CodeFirst.Common Project
public class Student
{
public int StudentId { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Surname { get; set; }
}
public interface IStudentService
{
IEnumerable<Student> GetAll();
}
//CodeFirst.Service Project
public class StudentService:IStudentService
{
private IStudentRepository _studentRepository;
public StudentService()
{
}
public StudentService(IStudentRepository studentRepository)
{
_studentRepository = studentRepository;
}
public IEnumerable<Student> GetAll()
{
//TODO when mocking using moq this will actually call the db as we need a separate class.
using (var ctx = new SchoolContext("SchoolDB"))
{
_studentRepository = new StudentRepository(ctx);
var students = _studentRepository.GetAll().ToList();
return students;
}
}
}
//CodeFirst.Dal Project
public interface IRepository<T> where T : class
{
T GetOne(Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate);
IEnumerable<T> GetAll();
IEnumerable<T> Find(Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate);
void Add(T entity);
void Delete(T entity);
T Single(Func<T, bool> predicate);
T First(Func<T, bool> predicate);
}
public class RepositoryBase<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class
{
private readonly IDbSet<T> _dbSet;
public RepositoryBase(DbContext dbContext)
{
_dbSet = dbContext.Set<T>();
if (_dbSet == null) throw new InvalidOperationException("Cannot create dbSet ");
}
protected virtual IDbSet<T> Query
{
get { return _dbSet; }
}
public T GetOne(Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate)
{
return Query.Where(predicate).FirstOrDefault();
}
public IEnumerable<T> GetAll()
{
return Query.ToArray();
}
public IEnumerable<T> Find(Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate)
{
return Query.Where(predicate).ToArray();
}
public void Add(T entity)
{
_dbSet.Add(entity);
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
_dbSet.Remove(entity);
}
public T Single(Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
return Query.Where(predicate).SingleOrDefault();
}
public T First(Func<T, bool> predicate)
{
return Query.Where(predicate).FirstOrDefault();
}
}
public class SchoolContext:DbContext
{
public SchoolContext(string connectionString):base(connectionString)
{
Database.SetInitializer<SchoolContext>(null);
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(DbModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
//Not sure why I have to do this.Without this when using integration testing
//as opposed to UnitTests it does not work.
modelBuilder.Entity<Student>().ToTable("Student"); }
public DbSet<Student> Students { get; set; }
}
public interface IStudentRepository:IRepository<Student>
{
}
public class StudentRepository : RepositoryBase<Student>, IStudentRepository
{
public StudentRepository(DbContext dbContext)
: base(dbContext)
{
}
public IEnumerable<Student> GetStudents()
{
return GetAll();
}
}
Again feel free to modify or whatever is needed to help me to get something together.
Thanks a lot for your help
When I started with repository and unit of work patterns I used the implementation similar to this (it is for ObjectContext API but converting it to DbContext API is simple). We used that implementation with MOQ and Unity without any problems. By the time implementations of repository and unit of work have evolve as well as the approach of injecting. Later on we found that whole this approach has serious pitfalls but that was alredy discussed in other questions I referenced here (I highly recommend you to go through these links).
It is very surprising that you are evaluating the EFv4.1 with high emphasis on mocking and unit testing and in the same time you defined service method which is not unit-testable (with mocking) at all. The main problem of you service method is that you are not passing repository/context as dependency and because of that you can't mock it. The only way to test your service and don't use the real repository is using some very advanced approach = replacing mocking and MOQ with detouring (for example Moles framework).
First what you must do is replacing your service code with:
public class StudentService : IStudentService
{
private readonly IStudentRepository _studentRepository;
public StudentService(IStudentRepository studentRepository)
{
_studentRepository = studentRepository;
}
public IEnumerable<Student> GetAll()
{
return _studentRepository.GetAll().ToList();
}
}
Btw. this is absolutely useless code and example of silly layering which doesn't offer any useful functionality. Just wrapping the call to repository only shows that service is not needed at all as well as unit testing this method is not needed. The main point here is integration test for GetAll method.
Anyway if you want to unit thest such method with MOQ you will do:
[TestClass]
public class StudentsServiveTest
{
private Mock<IRespository<Student>> _repo;
[TestInitialize]
public void Init()
{
_repo = new Mock<IRepository<Student>>();
_repo.Setup(r => r.GetAll()).Returns(() => new Student[]
{
new Student { StudentId = 1, Name = "A", Surname = "B" },
new Student { StudentId = 2, Name = "B", Surname = "C" }
});
}
[TestMethod]
public void ShouldReturnAllStudents()
{
var service = new StudentsService(_repo.Object);
var data = service.GetAll();
_repo.Verify(r => r.GetAll(), Times.Once());
Assert.IsNotNull(data);
Assert.AreEqual(2, data.Count);
}
}
The issue from what I can see is that you are throwing away the mock object and newing up a new instance
_studentRepository = new StudentRepository(ctx);
Perhaps add a method on the interface to add the context object and reuse the same instance that was injected in the constructor.
using (var ctx = new SchoolContext("SchoolDB"))
{
_studentRepository.Context = ctx;
var students = _studentRepository.GetAll().ToList();
return students;
}
}

Testable design with COM objects

What is a good way to design for testing and extensibility when a component used to complete a task could either be a COM component or a .NET component? Does it make sense to wrap the COM component completely and extract an interface? Here is a simple, completely contrived, RCW interface on a COM component, where "abc" is the acronym for the component maker:
public interface IComRobot
{
void abcInitialize(object o);
void abcSet(string s, object o);
void abcBuild();
void abcExit();
}
To me, the fact that the provider of the component chose to prefix all methods with something indicating their company is somewhat irritating. The problem is, I want to define other Robot components that perform the same actions, but the underlying implementation is different. It would be completely confusing to Robot builders to have to implement "abcAnything".
How should I go about building a RobotFactory with a simple implementation that works like this?
public class RobotFactory
{
public static IRobot Create(int i)
{
// // problem because ComRobot implements IComRobot not IRobot
if (i == 0) return new ComRobot();
if (i == 1) return new AdvancedRobot();
return new SimpleRobot();
}
}
Should I bite the bullet and accept the abc prefix in my interface, thus confusing robot implementers? Should I force a dependency on the Robot consumer to know when they are using the COM robot? None of these seem ideal. I'm thinking about an additional level of abstraction (that can solve everything, right?). Something like so:
public interface IRobot : IDisposable
{
void Initialize(object o);
void Set(string s, object o);
void Build();
void Exit();
}
public class ComRobotWrapper: IRobot
{
private readonly IComRobot m_comRobot;
public ComRobotWrapper()
{
m_comRobot = ComRobotFactory.Create();
}
public void Initialize(object o)
{
m_comRobot.abcInitialize(o);
}
public void Set(string s, object o)
{
m_comRobot.abcSet(s, o);
}
public void Build()
{
m_comRobot.abcBuild();
}
public void Exit()
{
m_comRobot.abcExit();
}
public void Dispose()
{
//...RELEASE COM COMPONENT
}
}
public class ComRobotFactory
{
public static IComRobot Create()
{
return new ComRobot();
}
}
I would then alter and use the RobotFactory like so:
public class RobotFactory
{
public static IRobot Create(int i)
{
if (i == 0) return new ComRobotWrapper();
if (i == 1) return new AdvancedRobot();
return new SimpleRobot();
}
}
public class Tester
{
// local vars loaded somehow
public void Test()
{
using (IRobot robot = RobotFactory.Create(0))
{
robot.Initialize(m_configuration);
robot.Set(m_model, m_spec);
robot.Build();
robot.Exit();
}
}
}
I'm interested in opinions on this approach. Do you recommend another approach? I really don't want to take on a DI framework, so that is out of scope. Are the pitfalls in testability? I appreciate you taking the time to consider this lengthy issue.
That looks spot on to me. You are creating an interface that is right for your domain / application, and implementing it in terms of a thrid party component.