Suppose you have the canonical Customer domain object. You have three different screens on which Customer is displayed: External Admin, Internal Admin, and Update Account.
Suppose further that each screen displays only a subset of all of the data contained in the Customer object.
The problem is: when the UI passes data back from each screen (e.g. through a DTO), it contains only that subset of a full Customer domain object. So when you send that DTO to the Customer Factory to re-create the Customer object, you have only part of the Customer.
Then you send this Customer to your Customer Repository to save it, and a bunch of data will get wiped out because it isn't there. Tragedy ensues.
So the question is: how would you deal with this problem?
Some of my ideas:
include an argument to the
Repository indicating which part of
the Customer to update, and ignore
others
when you load the Customer, keep it in static memory, or in the session, or wherever, and then when you receive one of the DTOs from the UI, update only the parts relevant to the DTO
IMO, both of these are kludges. Are there any other better ideas?
#chadmyers: Here is the problem.
Entity has properties A, B, C, and D.
DTO #1 contains properties for B and C.
DTO #2 contains properties for C and D.
UI asks for DTO #1, you load entity from the repository, convert it into DTO #1, filling in only B and C, and give it to the UI.
Now UI updates B and sends the DTO back. You recreate the entity and it has only B and C filled in because that is all that is contained in the DTO.
Now you want to save the entity, which has only B and C filled in, with A and D null/blank. The repository has no way of knowing if it should update A and D in persistence as blanks, or whether it should ignore them.
I would use factory to load a complete customer object from repository upon receipt of DTO. After that you can update only those fields that were specified in DTO.
That also allows you to apply some optimistic concurrency on your customer by checking last-updated timestamp, for example.
Is this a web app? Load the customer object from the repo, update it from the DTO, save it back. That doesn't seem like a kludge to me. :)
UPDATE: As per your updates (the A, B, C, D example)
So what I was thinking is that when you load the entity, it has A, B, C, and D filled in. If DTO#1 only updates B & C, that's OK. A and D are unaffected (which is the desired situation).
What the repository does with the B & C updates is up to him. If you're using Hibernate/NHibernate, for example, it will just figure it out and issue an update.
Just because DTO #1 only has B & C doesn't mean you have to also null out A & D. Just leave them alone.
I missed the point of this question at first because it is predicated on a few things that I don't think make sense from a design perspective.
Hydrating an entity from repository and then converting it to a DTO is a waste of effort. I assume that your DAL passes a DTO to your repository which then converts it to a full entity object. So converting it back to a DTO seems wasteful.
Having multiple DTOs makes sense if you have a search results page that shows a high volume of records and only displays part of your entity data. In that case it's efficient to pass that page just the data it needs. It does not make sense to pass a DTO that contains partial data to a CRUD page. Just give it a full DTO or even a full entity object. If it doesn't use all of the data, fine, no harm done.
So that main problem is that I don't think you should pass data to these pages using partial DTOs. If you used a full DTO, I would do the following 3 steps whenever the save action is performed:
Pull the full DTO from repository or db
Update the DTO with any changes made through the form
Save the full DTO back to the repository or db
This method requires an extra db hit but that's really not a significant issue on a CRUD form.
If we have an understanding that a Repository handles (almost exclusively) very rich domain Entity, then you numerous DTO's could simply map back.
i.e.
dtoUser.MapFrom<In,Out>(Entity)
or
dtoAdmin.MapFrom<In,Out>(Entity)
you would do the reverse to get the dto information back to the Entity and so on. So your repository only saves rich Entity's NOT numerous DTO's
entity.Foo = dtoUser.Foo
or
entity.Bar = dtoAdmin.Bar
entityRepsotiry.Save(entity) <-- do not pass DTO.
The whole point of DTO's is to keep things simple for the presentation or say for WCF dataTransfer, it has nothing to do with the Repository or the Entity for that matter.
Furthermore, you should never construct an Entity from DTO's... the only two ways to ever acquire an Entity is through a Factory(new) or a Repository(existing) respectively.
You mention storing the Entity somewhere, why would you do this? That is the job of your repository. It will decide where to get the Entity(db,cache,e.t.c), no need to store it somewhere else.
Hope that helps assign responsibility in your domain, it is always a challenge and there are gray area's here and there but in general, these are the typical uses of Repository, DTO e.t.c.
Related
i am new to realm and did not found a solution which was satisfies me.
i have an application where i can record tours with gps data and so on. (there are multiple different objects which are stored in realm).
i created a realm singleton which should do all my realm suff (update, create, delete) for my objects.
now i ran into the following problem:
i start a tour and record it. first it is created, everything is fine. then i came to the point where i have to update my tour object and only a few properties (basically each new gps point updates it). an additional requirement is, that there can be properties, which are not persistent in realm and are only on the object instance.
so now i have the options to call realm.add(object, update:true) which overrides all properties.
i cannot say object.prop1 = asdf , object.pro2 = 345 because i have no write context at this level of my logic. so i can update within a realm.create(type, updatedict, update:true)
but the big downside of this approach is, that i have to refetch the object again to "know" the changes on my object instance.
so updating some properties of an object results in:
create dictionary with id(primary key) and properties to change
call update on my realm singleton and passing all necessary data.
call a fetch on my realm instance to get the new object again, which leads me to loose existing not persisted property values.
i doubt i'm the first with such a requirement but i could not find a solution:
Summary:
Realm Singleton class handling all Realm actions within a write context
Different Realm Object classes which can have not persistent objects
Need partially update for some properties
dont want to have realm code in my viewcontrollers logic, only in its manager.
It's hard to suggest something without any code examples but personally I think not having the ability to update the individual properties of your models is not a good idea.
I think you have 2 options:
Add a method to your RealmSingleton that allows you to get write context (to execute a block inside a write transaction), like:
func updateTour(updateBlock: (Tour) -> Void) {
realm.write {
updateBlock(currentTour)
}
}
...
RealmSingleton.shared.updateTour { tour in
tour.property = value
}
Add the convenience methods to update the individual properties of your Tour object:
RealmSingleton.shared.setTourProperty(value)
Example:
A SalesOrder is composed of a SalesOrderHeader and one or more SalesOrderItems. When editing an existing SalesOrder, the SalesOrderHeader can be modified and SalesOrderItems can be added, modified and deleted. All changes must be saved in a single transaction. Multiple users may edit the SalesOrder at the same time with optimistic concurrency.
I believe that the requirement to have the save done in a single transaction encourages us to communicate both the SaleOrderHeader and the SalesOrderItems in a single service call. The implication of packaging up the child data with its parent is that there will need to be some understanding as to whether the child data is added, modified or deleted.
Change tracking of the child entities can happen either on the server or on the client.
Change tracking on the server
The idea with this strategy is that the client can modify the SalesOrder to its will without tracking which SalesOrderItems are added, modified or deleted. The state of the SalesOrderItems will be determined on the server when the save service is called.
The server should remain stateless between service calls. This means that the server can’t retain any information about the state of the SalesOrder between its retrieval and its eventual save. The only option left if for the server to determine the state of its entities by comparing the modified object graph to the database object graph.
With nHibernate, there is a merge function to accomplish this. With Entity framework, the highest voted feature request is to have this added. There’s also an open source implementation of this for EF called GraphDiff.
This sounds great in theory because it makes the services very easy to design and use. However, I see two major issues with this strategy. The first is performance. The entire object graph must be sent back on every save. Whether or not a SalesOrderItem was modified, it must be sent back or the server will assume it’s been deleted. The second problem is even more critical and it has to do with concurrency. If User 1 adds a SalesOrderItem to a SalesOrder and User 2 makes a change to the same SalesOrder, when User 2 saves the server will assume that the SalesOrderItem added by User 1 should be deleted because it was not included in User 2’s object graph. I don’t see a way this can be prevented in any implementation of server side change tracking.
Change tracking on the client
The alternative is to have the client track changes to its entities and communicate that state when calling the save service. One benefit is that the client does not need to send its unchanged child entities. This helps with performance. A downside is that all entities will need an additional property named something along the lines of “ObjectState” to track whether it’s added, modified or deleted. This makes the entity models on the server quite messy and filled with concerns unrelated to the business domain. This also puts onus on the different consumers of the service to maintain this state. Another problem is that it becomes difficult to deal with deleted entities. Should the SalesOrderHeader maintain a list of deleted SalesOrderItems? or should the SalesOrderItems get assigned a state of deleted which must be filtered out by the client UI?
I know that breeze javascript library has its own implementation of client-side entity tracking but my concern is that its implementation requires both client-side and server-side components. Shouldn't the service layer isolate which technology we use on either side? What if non-javascript clients want to use my services?
Question
I would think this is a common scenario that should be addressed by the majority of service implementations. Have I made any incorrect assumptions or am I doing anything out or the ordinary? What strategy have you implemented? Are there any reasonable alternatives?
Full disclosure: I work with Breeze, and I think change tracking on the client is the way to go. Change tracking on the client allows stateless servers, reduces traffic between the client and server, and allows offline use.
In Breeze, the "ObjectState" that you mention is called the EntityAspect, and each entity has one, but it is not part of the domain model. The server-side entities don't need an EntityAspect, but the server-side service has to know how to handle the entity state information that comes from the client.
Basically, the service needs to create, update, or delete entities based on the information coming from the client. There are existing server-side backends for Breeze that do all this already (in .NET (EF and NHibernate), Java, PHP, Node, and Ruby), but you can also write your own. Your server just needs to know how to talk to the client.
Let's say we've updated a SalesOrder and added a new SalesOrderItem. The Breeze client sends a save bundle that looks something like this:
{
"entities": [
{
"Id": 123,
"Title": "My Updated Title",
"OrderDate": "2014-08-03T07:00:00.000Z",
"entityAspect": {
"entityTypeName": "SalesOrder:#My.DomainModel",
"entityState": "Modified",
"originalValuesMap": {
"Title": "My Original Title"
},
"autoGeneratedKey": {
"propertyName": "Id",
"autoGeneratedKeyType": "Identity"
}
}
},
{
"Id": -1,
"SalesOrderId": 123,
"ProductId": 456,
"Quantity": 11,
"entityAspect": {
"entityTypeName": "SalesOrderItem:#My.DomainModel",
"entityState": "Added",
"originalValuesMap": {
},
"autoGeneratedKey": {
"propertyName": "Id",
"autoGeneratedKeyType": "Identity"
}
}
}
]
}
Here, SalesOrder with Id# 123 has been modified (its Title has been changed). The entityAspect includes the originalValuesMap which shows what the previous Title was.
The server would need to update the existing SalesOrder with the new value. Whether the server needs to query the existing SalesOrder from the database before applying the changes is implementation-dependent.
A new SalesOrderItem has been added. A temporary Id, -1, was created for it on the client. The server needs to create and persist a new SalesOrderItem and generate a real Id for it.
The response from the server should contain the entities that were created and updated, and KeyMapping information that shows what server-generated keys map to the temporary client-side keys, so that the client can replace them.
Change tracking is not a simple problem, but Breeze tries to do the hard parts for you.
I'd like to piggy back on Steve's answer.
We should be clear: the onus for implementing the Order-graph (AKA "Order aggregate") transaction in a relational data model falls on the developer. BreezeJS (and Breeze helpers for .NET servers) can facilitate but you have to make it work.
The key to making this work is including the root element of the aggregate - the Order - in all changes to any entity within the aggregate. If you add, delete, or modify an OrderItem, make sure you modify the Order at the same time .
How? By bumping the Order's concurrency property (e.g, the rowVersion) and making sure that Breeze KNOWS this is your concurrency property.
You must implement root entity optimistic concurrency if you want to ensure Order aggregate consistency.
Now you can detect if someone else has made a change to any part of the Order aggregate. That could be a change to the Order or an add/mod/delete of one of its OrderItems.
You do not have to include all OrderItems in the change-set when you save a changed Order aggregate. You only need to include the OrderItems that are added/modified/deleted.
Of course some other user may make a change to the Order aggregate before you save yours. When you try to save yours, the save will fail with an optimistic concurrency error.
Upon detecting an optimistic concurrency error for an Order, make sure the client removes the entire order aggregate from cache - the Order and all of its OrderItems - and then re-fetch the aggregate Don't just re-fetch the root Order entity and start messing with its items. Make sure you remove the entire aggregate from cache and then re-fetch it (the order and its items).
If everyone follows this protocol you'll be in fine shape on the server.
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!
We have Unit of Work implemented in EntityFramework, so when we use ObjectContext and make any changes to the Entity it is tracked and then on SaveChanges it is all reflected in underlying database.
But what if I want to track changes for my custom class, so every modifications are tracked down and sent through webservice call ?
I have webservice which provides me some data, that data is displayed in datagrid and then may be modified. I want to track all the changes down and then be able to send back through webservice the data only that have been modified. Is there any solution for that like EntityFramework or POCO or whatever ? Or I have to implement my own Unit of Work pattern for it ?
Change tracking works only when entity is attached to the context. There is special type of entities called Self tracking entities which is able to track changes on the client side when exposed with web service but these classes are still your primary entities (not custom objects) and they apply their tracked state directly to the context.
What you describe has nothing to do with unit-of-work pattern. You are looking for change set pattern which is able to pass only differences back to the service. Implementation of such classes is completely up to you. .NET doesn't provide them. .NET offers two implementations of change set pattern
mentioned Self tracking entities for EF
DataSet and related classes
Both these implementations transfer by default all data (moreover at least DataSets have by default both old and new state in the message). Both data sets and STEs share same limitations - they are very badly interoperable.
Change tracking at the property level should not be left to the client of a WCF call, for a variety of reasons. If you use a DTO (Data-Transfer Object) pattern, you should be able to keep your individual objects small enough to avoid having any significant overhead from sending the entire changed object across the wire. Then, on the server side, you load the current version of the object out of your database, set the values provided by the DTO, and let Entity Framework track the changed properties.
public SavePerson(Person person)
{
using(var context = _contextFactory.Get())
{
var persistentPerson = context.People.Single(p => p.PersonId == person.PersonId);
persistendPerson.FirstName = person.FirstName;
/// etc. (This could be done with a tool like AutoMapper)
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
If you're changing multiple objects on the client side, and you want to keep track of which ones the user has changed, you could have the client be responsible for keeping track of the objects that get changed and send only those objects to the web service in bulk. There, you can apply the same pattern and wait to SaveChanges until all of the objects have been updated.
Hopefully this helps.