Testable design - testability

I have a java class which has a static member created using Facade (Singleton).
Class A implements InterfaceA {
private static DataStore db = DataStoreFacade.getInstance("BDB"); //singleton instance
public void save(final String key, final String val) {
db.save(key,val);
}
};
Here Class A is used as a member variable for webservice (stateless bean).
I can't test this code using EasyMock because there is no way to override the DataStore instance.
There are two options.
Have a constructor taking the instance of DataStore which will set to db member variable. The problem is I don't want webservice class to know which datastore instance has been created.
Provide an additional protected Set Method to override the db object. This is what I have used where I create a Easy Mock object of DataStore and override the member variable. Is it the correct design.
What are the other possibilities?

You're right that is bad for testability. Use dependency injection and don't go for static variable:
public class A implements InterfaceA {
private DataStore db;
public A(DataStore db) {
this.db = db;
}
...
}
to inject or build either use dependency-injection framework (e.g. spring) or build the object somewhere in bootstrap factory code yourself.
production code:
new A(DataStoreFacade.getInstance("...");
test-code:
public void test_xxx(){
DataStore db = EasyMock.createMock(DataStore.class);
//... do some expectations and replay(db)
InterfaceA a=new A(db);
//...
}

Well, the original code is already testable. Here is a unit test for it, using JMockit:
#Test
public void testSave(final DataStore mockDb)
{
final String key = "aKey";
final String value = "aValue";
new A().save(aKey, aValue);
new Verifications()
{{
mockDb.save(key, value);
}};
}
If needed, the DataStoreFacade class could be mocked too.

Why not make the db member protected, and in your test project inherit it and override that member:
project
{
Class A
{
protected static db = ...
public void Save(...) { ... }
}
}
test_project
{
Class B : A
{
protected override static db = ... (create test db)
}
Class testB
{
public A a;
public void Setup()
{
this.a = new B();
}
public void TearDown()
{
// delete a
}
public void TestSaveKey()
{
// test a
}
}
}
It's still hidden from consumers of the code/library, the test object isn't cluttering the production code, and the behaviour will be tested as if it were the production version.
Beware though, that having a static member for your db object could cause troubles for your tests if it's not cleaned up properly after each test.*
I know that you probably already know this, but I'm saying it for completeness.

Use the Supersede Instance pattern...
http://goodcoffeegoodcode.blogspot.com/2010/01/supercede-instance-pattern.html

Related

Unit of work pattern not allowing me to create db context without options

I am using ef core and I am trying to implement the repository pattern as part of best practices. But I am we bit confused on the context normally I would create the context in the and inject
HomeController(WarehouseDBContext _context)
I have created my unitOfWork Class as suggested by the docs here
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/mvc/overview/older-versions/getting-started-with-ef-5-using-mvc-4/implementing-the-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application#creating-the-unit-of-work-class
However I am tad confused. It's expecting options here which is normally handled on the controller.
My UnitOfWork class
public class WarehouseUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
private WarehouseDBContext context = new WarehouseDBContext();
private WarehouseRepository<StockItem> stockRepository;
public WarehouseRepository<StockItem> StockRepoistry
{
get
{
if (this.stockRepository == null)
{
this.stockRepository = new WarehouseRepository<StockItem>(context);
}
return stockRepository;
}
}
public void Save()
{
context.SaveChanges();
}
private bool disposed = false;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!this.disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
context.Dispose();
}
}
this.disposed = true;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
But here it is complain that it expect options which would I presume contain the connection string. I am trying to decouple my code from EF so that If I want to upgrade in the future will be easier. My WareshouseDBContext is describe below
As you can see it is expecting options. What should I pass through here?
namespace WareHouseDal.Dal {
public class WarehouseDBContext : IdentityDbContext<ApplicationUser> {
public WarehouseDBContext(DbContextOptions<WarehouseDBContext> options)
: base(options) {
}
public DbSet<WarehouseCrm> Warehouse { get; set; }
public DbSet<Company> Companies { get; set; }
}
}
When I used to create my context before I just used the singleton pattern of
private readonly WarehouseDBContext _context;
Is their something else I need to do to allow it to accept the creation of the context on the unit of work level.
Error being given is
You shouldn't create a DbContext manually. Why not injecting the DbContext in your UOW class? Then the DI will manage the life cycle of the db context. To be honest I am not a fan of adding a UOW wrapper around EF which already implements the UOW pattern.
I would recommend you to see both talks, it will change the way you structure apps forever:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OtUm1BLmG0&ab_channel=NDCConferences
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kOzZz2vj2o&t=3s&ab_channel=NDCConferences
Another amazing talk about EF Core details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zySHbwl5IeU&ab_channel=NDCConferences
If you want to stick with Repository pattern, please check Ardalis repository with a clear example: https://github.com/ardalis/CleanArchitecture
I agree Ardalis repository is a great tutorial/example, in case if anyone want a lite solution to implement the Repository and Unit of Work Patterns in EF 5/EF 6.
you may check out the below one, I tested it would work in EF Core 6
https://pradeepl.com/blog/repository-and-unit-of-work-pattern-asp-net-core-3-1/

Unit of Work with Repository having Generic methods

We are using EF with DB first, and we are not planning to create Repository classes per table. Instead, we will have repository classes representing modules, which internally might interact with multiple tables.
The code which I have started writing is something like this:
public class ModuleRepository
{
public void GetModules()
{
using (IUnitOfWork uow = new UnitOfWork())
{
//Get the specific DBSet
var dbTable = uow.GetDbSet<Customer>();
var dbTable1 = uow.GetDbSet<Supplier>();
//do whatever you want to do.
//call save changes to commit
uow.SaveChanges();
}
}
}
class UnitOfWork: IUnitOfWork
{
private DbContext _context;
public UnitOfWork()
{
_context = new DbContext("");
}
public void Dispose()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public void SaveChanges()
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
public DbSet<T> GetDbSet<T>() where T:class
{
DbSet<T> entities = _context.Set<T>();
return entities;
}
}
public interface IUnitOfWork: IDisposable
{
void SaveChanges();
DbSet<T> GetDbSet<T>() where T : class;
}
In SaveChanges I will have the _context.SaveChanges() to commit the changes to the DB.
This is I guess one way to do this.
Another possible way could be:
create a generic base repository class. Each module repository will have a list of these repository classes.
uow class
UOW Manager -> will pass list of base repositories to say a method Setup. This UOW Manager will create a UOW with a context, and this UOW will be passed to each repository - effectively all repository having the same context.
I think code wise it will work, though not sure which one is the right approach or there could be some better approach.
Also in any of these two scenarios, how to achieve unit testing? Any ideas around this?

Get database name within Up method of Migration

How do I get the name of the database that a migration is operating over from within the Up (or Down) method of a class that extends Migration
public class BaseMigration : Migration
{
public override void Up()
{
var databaseName = HOW_DO_I_GET_THIS?
}
}
You can derive the database name from the connection string if you have it specified there. For example, this will work if you're using SQL server:
public class BaseMigration : Migration
{
public override void Up()
{
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnectionStringBuilder builder =
new System.Data.SqlClient.SqlConnectionStringBuilder(ConnectionString);
var databaseName = builder.InitialCatalog;
}
}
Otherwise, use one of the other available
System.Data.Common.DbConnectionStringBuilder implementations:
System.Data.EntityClient.EntityConnectionStringBuilder
System.Data.Odbc.OdbcConnectionStringBuilder
System.Data.OleDb.OleDbConnectionStringBuilder
System.Data.OracleClient.OracleConnectionStringBuilder
See this stackoverflow post for more information.

Proper way of using Unit of Work with unity injection

I am using unity, entity framework 4 with POCO classes, repository pattern for DAL and services for Business Logic control.
I also want to use Unit of Work so I can package together CRUD operations which I perform on different services and then commit them all together.
My question is what would be the proper way to inject the Unit Of Work mechanism into my application using Microsoft Unity?
I understand that I can put the IUnitOfWork together with the repository on the constructor of the proper service and then if Unity mapping is specified it would auto initiate the proper instances, but this way I do not pass the global unit of work but rather create a new instance on each level, which can't be a smart way to do it (actually the repository is initiated even before the service).
What am I missing? (Attached is constructor code as I wrote it now of service and its repository).
U also understand that I can use Unity's ParameterOverrides method to take some global instance of Unit of Work (lets say from my aspx.cs file) and pass it into the service and then into the repository. But it seems a bit lame. Is this my only option?
Thanks
public class GenericRepository<T> : IUnitOfWorkRepository, IGenericRepository<T> where T : BaseEntity, IAggregateRoot
{
private IUnitOfWork _uow;
/// <summary>
/// Returns the active object context
/// </summary>
private ObjectContext ObjectContext
{
get
{
return ObjectContextManager.GetObjectContext();
}
}
public GenericRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
{
_uow = uow;
}
//blahhhh...
public void Add(T entity)
{
_uow.RegisterNew(entity, this);
}
public void Delete(T entity)
{
_uow.RegisterRemoved(entity, this);
}
//.....blah blah....
public void PersistCreationOf(IAggregateRoot entity)
{
this.ObjectContext.AddObject(GetEntitySetName(), entity);
}
public void PersistUpdateOf(IAggregateRoot entity)
{
// Do nothing as EF tracks changes
}
public void PersistDeletionOf(IAggregateRoot entity)
{
this.ObjectContext.DeleteObject(entity);
}
}
public class CategoryRepository : GenericRepository<XComSolutions.FB.Domain.Model.Entities.Category>, ICategoryRepository
{
public CategoryRepository(IUnitOfWork uow)
: base(uow)
{ }
}
public class CategoryService : ICategoryService
{
public int myID {get; set;}
private ICategoryRepository _categoryRepository;
private IUnitOfWork _uow;
public CategoryService(ICategoryRepository categoryRepository,
IUnitOfWork uow)
{
_categoryRepository = categoryRepository;
_uow = uow;
}
public List<Category> GetAll()
{
return _categoryRepository.GetAll();
}
}
Define an IUnitOfWorkFactory and inject that in your services:
public class Service
{
private readonly IUnitOfWorkFactory factory;
public Service(IUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
public void DoOperation()
{
using (UnitOfWork context = this.factory.CreateNew())
{
this.DoSomeStuff(context);
this.DoMoreStuff(context);
context.SubmitChanges();
}
}
}
What I think you need to do is to define unit of work factory. You register this factory with your DI container and you resolve for this factory every time you need your unit of work. Then you get unit of work from the factory, work with it and let it go. You often will see that you need your unit of work within a scope of single method or single class. This article discuss Unit of Work pattern in connection with Entity Framework: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd882510.aspx

How do I Inject Dependencies with Ninject, where instances are deserialised from json

This is my first try using DI, I've chosen ninject for it's reportedly easy learning curve, and have this question.
I'm creating objects like this:
var registrants = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Registrant>>(input);
I currently have this constructor for Registrant
[Inject]
public Registrant(IMemberRepository memberRepository)
{
_memberRepository = memberRepository;
}
What is the best way to have the repository dependency be injected into the deserialized object(s) using Ninject?
You can't use constructor injection with objects that are not created by Ninject (e.g. deserialized objects). But you can use property injection. Just call kernel.Inject(obj)
One question that remains is why you want to inject those objects. Normally, you don't want to use depedency injection on data container objects. In a proper design they don't have any dependency on services. The operations that need to be done on the services are done by the owner of the data container objects. I recommend to consider a refactoring of your design.
Assuming you're using Ninject V2, and you're using it in the context of an ASP.NET app, you should be using Ninject.Web to do the hookups.
Then you set up a Global class with the Factory Method support hooked in:
public class Global : NinjectHttpApplication
{
protected override Ninject.IKernel CreateKernel()
{
var kernel = new StandardKernel( new Module() );
kernel.Components.Add( new FuncModule( ) );
return kernel;
}
}
that registers the module that will Bind IMemberRepository to something:
public class Module : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Bind<IMemberRepository>().To<MemberRepository>();
}
}
and the page wires up like this:
public class ThePage : PageBase
{
readonly Func<Registrant> _createRegistrant;
public ThePage( Func<Registrant> createRegistrant )
{
_createRegistrant = createRegistrant;
}
private void OnCreateRegistrant()
{
var newRegistrant = _createRegistrant();
}
}
NB not 100% sure if constructor injection is supported for Web Forms pages or wheter the above needs to drop to property injection... anyone?
(assuming the classes you have are as follows:)
public class MemberRepository : IMemberRepository
{
}
public interface IMemberRepository
{
}
public class Registrant
{
private readonly IMemberRepository _memberRepository;
public Registrant( IMemberRepository memberRepository )
{
_memberRepository = memberRepository;
}
}

Resources