Im working on a eCommerce system in which I try to implement the clean architecture.
But currently Im stuck a little bit.
So I have a use case called: CreateItemUseCase in which I create a Item (alias product) for the shop.
In this use case I call a method (createItemEntity()) of a Entity called ItemEntity.
This method creates just a data object with data like:
userId
itemTitle
itemDescription
...
So now I need another method in the ItemEntity which validates the userId.
To create a Item the user needs to have a userId so the method in the ItemEntity would be called:
validateUserId()
This method should check if the user has a userId in the database and if not the Item creation would be imposible.
Now my question:
How do I validate the userId?
Should I have the validateUserId() method take a array as a parameter, In which all the User Id´s are saved... something like this:
validateUserId(toBeValidated: Int, allUserIds: Array[Int])
{
// loop through the allUserIds to see if toBeValidated is in there ...
}
Or should I query the data in the method (which Im pretty sure, would violate the dependencie rule) like this:
validateUserId(toBeValidated: Int)
{
// get all user id´s through a query, and check if toBeValidated is in there ...
}
Or should I do it completly different?
In general, entities should only contain logic that is operating on information (data) that is within the entity's scope. Knowing how to query if a user with a certain user id exists or not is not in the scope of the item entity.
I think your motivation to keep all the logic for validation together is reasonable but on the other hand you should not introduce infrastructure dependencies (like talking to the database or user repository) to the entity. Knowing how to query if a user with a certain user id exists or not is not in the scope of the item entity.
Or should I query the data in the method (which Im pretty sure, would violate the dependencie rule) like this
Exactly, that's why it's usually best trying to avoid that to keep entities free from such dependencies. Introducing such dependencies can easily get out of hand and also increase complexity for testing such entities. If you need to do that it should be a very thought decision that justifies that.
Should I have the validateUserId() method take a array as a parameter, In which all the User Id´s are saved... something like this
This is not such a bad idea in general, because you would not make the entity dependent on infrastructure and provide the entity with all the data it needs for decision making. But on the other hand now you can run into another problem: bad performance.
Now you would retrieve all user ids everytime you create an item. If you would do the check for the user's existence somewhere else this can be optimized much better.
I suggest to ask the user repository beforehand if the user exists prior to performance the entity creation including all the other potentially required validations inside item entity that make sense there. The user repository could have a query that optimizes for just checking for the existence of this user by id.
In case these two operations (asking for the user's existence and creating the new item) only happen at one place of the application I'd be pragmatic and perform the user existence check directly in the use case. If this would occur from different places in your application you can extract that logic into a separate (domain) service (e.g. item service) which deals with the repetitive flow operations working with the user repository and item entity.
What you are dealing here with is a trade-off decision between domain model purity, domain model completeness and performance considerations. In this great blog this is named the Domain-Driven Design Trilemma. I suggest going through the reasoning in the article, I'm pretty sure it will help you coming to a final decision.
I think this is one of side case of what we call Business Gerunds
Details: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/05/19/10-best-practices-for-event-streaming-success/
If Item has to validate the user, just see what common attributes are there between entities and who is responsible for change of those, and then a segregation can be done in DDD representation, and using a composite via transaltion, outside world entities can exist as the same
Related
I have a lot of code like this
additional_params = {
date_issued: pending.present? ? pending.date_issued : Time.current,
gift_status: status,
date_played: status == "Opened" ? Chronic.parse("now") : (opened.present? ? opened.date_played : nil),
email_template: service&.email_template,
email_text: service&.email_text,
email_subject: service&.email_subject,
label: service&.label,
vendor_confirmation_code: service&.vendor_confirmation_code
}
SomeService.new(reward, employee: employee, **additional_params).create
The same pattern applies to many models and services.
What is the name of this pattern?
How to refactor the current solution?
Is there a gem to solve this kind of solution? Like draper or something else
To me, that looks a bit like a god object for every type of entity. You expect your service to take care of everything related to your entity. The entity itself just acts as a data container and isn't responsible for its data. That's called an anemic model.
First of all, you need to understand that there can be several representations of the same entity. You can have several different classes that represent a user. On the "List user" page, the class contains just a subset of the information, maybe combined with information from the account system (last login, login attempt etc). On the user registration page, you have another class as it's not valid to supply all information for the user.
Those classes are called data transfer objects. Their purpose is to provide the information required for a specific use case and to decouple the internal entity from the external API (i.e. the web page).
Once you have done that, your service classes will start to shrink and you need fewer custom parameters for every method call.
Now your service class has two responsibilities: To manage all entities and to be responsible for their business rules.
To solve that, you should start to only modify your entities through behaviors (methods) and never update the fields directly. When you do so, you will automatically move logic from your service class to your entity class.
Once that is done, your service classes will be even cleaner.
You can read about Domain Driven Design to get inspired (no need to use DDD, but get inspired by how the application layer is structured in it).
You can try the builder pattern. I am not familiar with a ruby gem, but you can find information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Builder_pattern and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface
I'm reading some data from an excel file, and hydrating it into an object of class A. Now I have to make sure that one of the fields of the data corresponds to the Id of a specific Entity. i.e:
class A{
protected $entityId;
}
I have to make sure that $entityId is an existing id of a specific entity (let's call it Foo). Now this can be achieved using the choice constraint, by supplying the choices option as all of the existing ids of Foo. However this will obviously cause a performance overhead. Is there a standard/better way to do this?
I'm a bit confused about what you are doing, since you seem to talk about Excel parsing, but at the same time you mention choices, which in my opinion relate to Forms.
IMO you should handle directly the relationship to your entity, instead of only its id. Most of the time it is always better to have directly the related entity as attribute of your class A than only the id, and Symfony manipulates such behaviours pretty well.
Then just have your Excel parser do something like this:
$relatedEntity = $this->relatedEntityRepository->find($entityId);
if (!$relatedEntity) {
throw new \Exception();
}
$entity->setRelatedEntity($relatedEntity);
After doing this, since you were talking about Forms, you can then use an EntityType field which will automatically perform the request in database. Use query_builder if you need to filter the results.
So I am struggling with the approach DDD has to follow when we talk about filtering and queries. From this SO question Is it okay to bypass the repository pattern for complex queries? I can see the filtering by User should be done after getting all the Products. The piece of code from the accepted answer is:
Products products = /* get Products repository implementation */;
IList<Product> res = products.BoughtByUser(User user);
But wait, and if the database has 1 million Products? Isn't the best approach to do this filter directly in the database like so:
productsRepository.Find(p => p.User.Id == userId);
But from my actual knowledge of DDD this would be wrong, because this logic should be inside the Product itself.
Therefore, how to handle this scenario?
I agree with Yorro's answer. According to the comment, products is indeed a repository.
The question around performance of the underlying datastructure vs keeping the domain knowledge in the application could be explored further though.
Databases are great at filtering and querying data, they are optimized to do so, and for us to ignore that simply to "keep our knowledge in the domain" is naive.
Your example shows Repository Specialization, which is fine albeit verbose.
The logic of that search is encapsulated by that call, and as long as the interface for calling that method is in the domain, and the implementation in the data-layer, everything is fine.
Indeed the call could be to a stored-procedure that performs a very complex operation. (In this case, yes some of your logic has escaped the domain, but you make it as a conscious decision, and should you introduce another data technology, you would have to implement that functionality again.)
There is another option...
We can encapsulate the logic of the search in a Specification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_pattern) and pass the specification from our domain logic code to our Repository who would interpret the specification and do the query.
That makes our domain oblivious of how the underlying data structure works, but it puts it in control of what the search criteria is.
I usually find myself implementing a blend of Repository Specialization, and having a base repository that accepts an ISpecification for more lightweight queries.
Based on your link, the Products class is the repository, just named without the "repository" suffix.
You are correct that the filtering should be in the database, you just don't see it because you are in the domain.
The first and second approach are the same. The difference is that the first is more align with DDD because of the proper usage of the ubiquitous language
// First example
// Take note, the products IS the repository
IList<Product> productsByUser = products.BoughtByUser(User user);
// Second example
IList<Product> productsByUser = productsRepository.Find(p => p.User.Id == userId);
If you dive in the data access layer, you can see the filtering that you are talking about.
public IList<Product> BoughByUser(User user)
{
IList<Product> products = this.dbContext.Products.Find(p => p.User.Id == user.ID);
return products;
}
This is not the direct answer of your question (Yorro's answer is right) but maybe it helps you to better understand DDD. This is a "wrong way, turn back" answer.
Your views doesn't need domain rules; doesn't need aggregates with 1 million of childs or 1 million of entities. So, you don't need to "bypass" the product repository because you should have "View Services" with "View Repositories" wich allows you to query (and paging, etc) denormalize data from persistence for your views.
You should apply domain rules using aggregates/entities when update/insert/delete is needed.
Once the user select one or several products from the 1 million list and push, for example, delete button you should use product repository to retrieve the aggregate/entity of selected products, apply delete rules and invariants and save in persistence.
I'm not sure which title would be more descriptive, so I kept it this way. I feel kinda lost in the world of MVC.
FYI: I use PHP, but that doesn't seem of much importance in this particular case.
My problem is as follows:
I have a UserController containing the following methods:
login
new
show
overview
Then I have my UserModel, containing - in this case - roughly the same methods:
login
create
fetch
The problem is: what do I keep my user data in once fetched from the database (or XML feed, or webservice, or whatever...)? I thought of a User 'business object', containing all (relevant) properties from the database. Then, when fetching the users from the database, I instantiate a new User object for each user I fetch. If only 1 user returned from the search, I return only the User object. If more users get returned, I instantiate a UserCollection object containing all User objects - in which case I can iterate over them, etcetera.
Is that a correct way of dealing with users in MVC?
And then: imagine I made an overview of 10 users. 5 of them get edited at once - imagine a status modification using checkboxes. How do I process the changes? Do I loop over all changed User objects and store them back in the database? Then it would start to look like an implementation of the Active Record Pattern, something I'm told not to use.
I hope someone can clarify which classes and/or methods I'd need to solve this 'architectural' problem.
Since it is a rather lengthy discussion. I will give the link to an article that I have written on MVC, trying to explain it in simple terms. You may want to take a look at it.
What is MVC pattern about?
If I understand correctly, your UserModel is a bit off;
the Model part of MVC is intended as a programmatic representation of the real world model.
Meaning- it represents all the properties and actions of the real-world subject. The classic example is the Car class, which has properties such as Wheel, CurrentSpeed, and actions such as GoForward(), GoReverse() etc..
So, in your case, I think your model should be what you described as a 'user business object'.
Your controller would be responsible for fetching the UserModels from storage (or wherever), and updating them back.
your workflow would be something like this:
View would call the Controller's GetUsers.
Controller goes to storage, and fetches a list of UserModels.
Controller returns them to the view.
View displays them in some way.
And the other way around for updating.
The UserModel class would be responsible for logic that pertains to individual users (for example- ChangePassword()).
How do you apply validation in an MVP/domain environment ?
Let me clearify with an example:
Domain entity:
class Customer
{
string Name;
etc.
}
MVP-model
class CustomerModel
{
string Name;
etc.
}
I want to apply validation on my domain entities but the MVP model has it's own model/class
apart from the domain entity, does that mean I have to copy the validation code
to also work on the MVP-model?
One solution I came up with is to drop the MVP-model and use the domain entity as MVP-Model,
but I don't want to set data to the entities that isn't validated yet.
And second problem that rises is that if the entity has notify-events,
other parts of the application will be affected with faulty data.
A third thing with that approach is if the user edits some data and then cancels the edit, how do I revert to the old values ? (The entity might not come from a DB so reloading the entity is't possible in all cases).
Another solution is to make some sort of copy/clone of the entity in question and use the copy as MVP-model, but then it might get troublesome if the entity has a large object graph.
Anyone has some tips about these problems?
Constraining something like the name of a person probably does not rightfully belong in the domain model, unless in the client's company there is actually a rule that they don't do business with customers whose names exceed 96 characters.
String length and the like are not concerns of the domain -- two different applications employing the same model could have different requirements, depending on the UI, persistence constraints, and use cases.
On the one hand, you want to be sure that your model of a person is complete and accurate, but consider the "real world" person you are modeling. There are no rules about length and no logical corollary to "oops, there was a problem trying to give this person a name." A person just has a name, so I'd argue that it is the responsibility of the presenter to validate what the user enters before populating the domain model, because the format of the data is a concern of the application moreso than the domain.
Furthermore, as Udi Dahan explains in his article, Employing the Domain Model Pattern, we use the domain model pattern to encapsulate rules that are subject to change. That a person should not a have a null name is not a requirement that is likely ever to change.
I might consider using Debug.Assert() in the domain entity just for an added layer of protection through integration and/or manual testing, if I was really concerned about a null name sneaking in, but something like length, again, doesn't belong there.
Don't use your domain entities directly -- keep that presentation layer; you're going to need it. You laid out three very real problems with using entities directly (I think Udi Dahan's article touches on this as well).
Your domain model should not acquiesce to the needs of the application, and soon enough your UI is going to need an event or collection filter that you're just going to have to stick into that entity. Let the presentation layer serve as the adapter instead and each layer will be able to maintain its integrity.
Let me be clear that the domain model does not have to be devoid of validation, but the validation that it contains should be domain-specific. For example, when attempting to give someone a pay raise, there may be a requirement that no raise can be awarded within 6 months of the last one so you'd need to validate the effective date of the raise. This is a business rule, is subject to change, and absolutely belongs in the domain model.