I have a service that handles different client types. There are a lot of service classes that differ in minute ways in the way they process different clients. For the most part these classes contain logic that is common to all clients, however there are places with logic specific to clients.
I understand I could use a Factory to return a set of objects for client specific logic, or use the Template method to have concrete implementations of an abstract class for different clients -- the problem with these approaches is that there are a lot of minute branching decisions that have to be made based on the client throughout the code, and these minute branching decisions are trivial, unconnected to each other, and they don't warrant separate classes. Is there a design pattern to elegantly implement this?
class Service {
void process() {
//....
if (client1) doStuff1();
if (client2) doStuff2();
//....
if (client1) name = "xyz";
else if (client2) name = "abc";
//....
if (client1) sortasc();
else sortdesc();
//....
if (client2) processx();
else if (client3) processy();
}
}
It looks like you are falling into a common trap. The service implementation is mostly the same for every, so you want to write the 'common' implementation and then code client-specific extensions. Each time you need to do something special for a client, though, you end up modifying the common service implementation, which quickly becomes an unmaintainable mess.
But really, there is no rule that the implementation has to be the same for every client. If there was such a rule, then you wouldn't have so many exceptions. The truth is that the processing is different for every client, and they just happen to be mostly the same today.
You should make a separate service implementation for each type of client.
If you are now starting to say "but I don't want to duplicate all the common code!", then stop. Take parts that really are common and extract them into utility methods that the different client implementations can call. The amount of code shared is pretty much the same...
class Client1Service implements Service {
void process() {
doCommonSetup();
doStuff1();
doCommonThing();
doStuffWithName("xyz");
sortasc();
doMoreCommonStuff();
processy();
}
}
... but now there's no mess of conditions, and when you need to make client-specific changes, there is a place to do that that doesn't mess up the implementations for all the other clients.
When you need to make changes to the common parts, well, there is also a single implementation of that stuff that you can modify.
Related
I have a controller that is violating Open and Closed Principle. I'm trying to figure out how to solve this with certain conditions. Here is the implementation.
struct BasicRecording
{
void show() {}
void hide() {}
};
struct AdvanceRecording
{
void show() {}
void hide() {}
};
class NotSolidRecordingSettingsController
{
BasicRecording br;
AdvanceRecording ar;
public:
void swithToAR();
void swithToBR();
};
void NotSolidRecordingSettingsController::swithToAR()
{
br.hide();
ar.show();
};
void NotSolidRecordingSettingsController::swithToBR()
{
ar.hide();
br.show();
};
The problem here is if I have a new recording settings, I would need to go back inside settings controller and add that new recording settings. If I inject the BasicRecording and AdvanceRecording in NotSolidRecordingSettingsController, then the Object instantiating NotSolidRecordingSettingsController will need to do the instantiating of BasicRecording and AdvanceRecording. But then that Object then violates OCP. Somebody has to create the object.
How can I design this to be OCP without just off loading the Not OCP part to some other thing?
Is there a particular design pattern for this kind of problem?
In the SOLID principles, OCP is really a consequence of SRP -- a class should have a single responsibility, and its code should only change when its internal requirements -- the requirements associated with its one job -- change.
In particular, a class shouldn't have to change because it's clients change. It may have a lot of clients and you don't want to mess with its code every time it gets new clients or the existing clients need to do something different. Hence OCP. Note that in OCP, "closed for modification" means you don't mess with it when you change the stuff that uses it. You do modify it when its own internal requirements change. That's just maintenance.
So OCP is about how classes relate to their clients, BUT, there are classes that have no clients. Their job is not to be services, and they are not used by other classes or to implement APIs, etc. These classes do not need to worry about OCP, because they naturally have no reason to change other than a change to their internal requirements.
A great example of such a class is what is sometimes called a "composition root" (googlable). Its single responsibility is to define how the system is built from its components. This is the guy that creates all the objects and injects them into everywhere they're needed.
You need a composition root that injects the settings panes into the controller (and whatever triggers them, because you can't have a method called switchToAR anymore). This class' job is to define the system by creating the required objects. When the arrangement of objects needs to change, then, that is a change to its internal requirements and you can go ahead and modify its code without violating SOLID.
(or you can have all that stuff read from configuration instead, but that is just implementing the composition root in config instead of your programming language. Sometimes that is a good idea, and sometimes not)
In the smell Data Class as Martin Fowler described in Refactoring, he suggests if I have a collection field in my class I should encapsulate it.
The pattern Encapsulate Collection(208) says we should add following methods:
get_unmodified_collection
add_item
remove_item
and remove these:
get_collection
set_collection
To make sure any changes on this collection need go through the class.
Should I refactor every class which has a collection field with this pattern? Or it depends on some other reasons like frequency of usage?
I use C++ in my project now.
Any suggestion would be helpful. Thanks.
These are well formulated questions and my answer is:
Should I refactor every class which has a collection field with this
pattern?
No, you should not refactor every class which has a collection field. Every fundamentalism is a way to hell. Use common sense and do not make your design too good, just good enough.
Or it depends on some other reasons like frequency of usage?
The second question comes from a common mistake. The reason why we refactor or use design pattern is not primarily the frequency of use. We do it to make the code more clear, more maintainable, more expandable, more understandable, sometimes (but not always!) more effective. Everything which adds to these goals is good. Everything which does not, is bad.
You might have expected a yes/no answer, but such one is not possible here. As said, use your common sense and measure your solution from the above mentioned viewpoints.
I generally like the idea of encapsulating collections. Also encapsulating plain Strings into named business classes. I do it almost always when the classes are meaningful in the business domain.
I would always prefer
public class People {
private final Collection<Man> people;
... // useful methods
}
over the plain Collection<Man> when Man is a business class (a domain object). Or I would sometimes do it in this way:
public class People implements Collection<Man> {
private final Collection<Man> people;
... // delegate methods, such as
#Override
public int size() {
return people.size();
}
#Override
public Man get(int index) {
// Here might also be some manipulation with the returned data etc.
return people.get(index);
}
#Override
public boolean add(Man man) {
// Decoration - added some validation
if (/* man does not match some criteria */) {
return false;
}
return people.add(man);
}
... // useful methods
}
Or similarly I prefer
public class StreetAddress {
private final String value;
public String getTextValue() { return value; }
...
// later I may add more business logic, such as parsing the street address
// to street name and house number etc.
}
over just using plain String streetAddress - thus I keep the door opened to any future change of the underlying logic and to adding any useful methods.
However, I try not to overkill my design when it is not needed so I am as well as happy with plain collections and plain Strings when it is more suited.
I think it depends on the language you are developing with. Since there are already interfaces that do just that C# and Java for example. In C# we have ICollection, IEnumerable, IList. In Java Collection, List, etc.
If your language doesn't have an interface to refer to a collection regarless of their inner implementation and you require to have your own abstraction of that class, then it's probably a good idea to do so. And yes, you should not let the collection to be modified directly since that completely defeats the purpose.
It would really help if you tell us which language are you developing with. Granted, it is kind of a language-agnostic question, but people knowledgeable in that language might recommend you the best practices in it and if there's already a way to achieve what you need.
The motivation behind Encapsulate Collection is to reduce the coupling of the collection's owning class to its clients.
Every refactoring tries to improve maintainability of the code, so future changes are easier. In this case changing the collection class from vector to list for example, changes all the clients' uses of the class. If you encapsulate this with this refactoring you can change the collection without changes to clients. This follows on of SOLID principles, the dependency inversion principle: Depend upon Abstractions. Do not depend upon concretions.
You have to decide for your own code base, whether this is relevant for you, meaning that your code base is still being changed and has to be maintained (then yes, do it for every class) or not (then no, leave the code be).
I've been reading on refactoring and replacing conditional statements with polymorphism. The trouble I have is that it only seems to make sense to me when you have a more complex case where, without polymorphism, you would have to repeat the same switch statements or if-elses many times. I don't see how it makes sense if you're only doing it once - you have to have that conditional somewhere, right?
As an example, I recently wrote the following class, which is responsible for reading a XML file and converting its data into the program's objects. There are 2 possible formats for the file that we are supporting, so I simply wrote a method in the class for handling each one, and used a case-switch to determine which one to use:
public class ComponentXmlReader
{
public IEnumerable<UserComponent> ImportComponentsFromXml(string path)
{
var xmlFile = XElement.Load(path);
switch (xmlFile.Name.LocalName)
{
case "CaseDefinition":
return ImportComponentsFromA(xmlFile);
case "Root":
return ImportComponentsFromB(xmlFile);
}
}
private IEnumerable<UserComponent> ImportComponentsFromA(XContainer file)
{
//do stuff
}
private IEnumerable<UserComponent> ImportComponentsFromB(XContainer file)
{
//do stuff
}
}
As far as I can tell, I could write a class hierarchy for this to do the parsing, but I don't see the advantage here - I'd still have to use a case-switch to determine which class to instantiate. It looks to me like it would be extra complexity for no benefit. If I was going to keep these classes around and do more things with them that depended on the file type, then it would eliminate doing the same switch in multiple places, but this is single-use. Is this right, or is there some reason or technique I'm not seeing that makes it a good idea to use a polymorphic class hierarchy to do this?
If you had, say, an abstract ComponentImporter class, with concrete subclasses FromA and FromB, you could instantiate one of each, and put it in a Map. Then you could call componentImporterMap.get(xmlFile.Name.LocalName).importComponents() and avoid the switch.
As with all design choices, context is key. In this case, you have what seems to be a fairly simple class handling two very similar tasks. If the two Import methods contained very little duplicate code, then including them in a single class is perhaps the best choice since, as you say, it reduces complexity.
However, it's possible you'll use this class in the future, and even add new types of imports. In that case, the class would be more reusable if it was polymorphic.
Additionally, since these methods sound very similar, you're likely to have a bunch of duplicate code, which you could keep in a base class and only put import-specific code in the child classes.
Plus, as Carl mentions, there are numbers of ways to implement this logic without using a case statement.
I have a class called FooJob() which runs on a WCF windows service. This class has only 2 public methods, the constructor, and a Run() method.
When clients call my service, a Dim a new instance of the Job class, pass in some parameters to the ctor, then call Run()...
Run() will take the parameters, do some logic, send a (real time) request to an outside data vendor, take the response, do some business logic, then put it in the database...
Is it wise to only write a single unit test then (if even possible) on the Run() function? Or will I wind up killing myself here? In this case then should I drill into the private functions and unit test those of the FooJob() class? But then won't this 'break' the 'only test behavior' / public interface paradigm that some argue for in TDD?
I realize this might be a vague question, but any advice / guidance or points in the right direction would be much appreciated.
Drew
do some logic, send a (real time) request to an outside data vendor, take the response, do some business logic, then put it in the database
The problem here is that you've listed your class as having multiple responsibilities... to be truly unit testable you need to follow the single responsibility principle. You need to pull those responsibilities out into separate interfaces. Then, you can test your implementations of these interfaces individually (as units). If you find that you can't easily test something your class is doing, another class should probably be doing that.
It seems like you'd need at least the following:
An interface for your business logic.
An interface defining the request to the outside vendor.
An interface for your data repository.
Then you can test that business logic, the process of communicating with the outside vendor, and the process of saving to your database separately. You can then mock out those interfaces for testing your Run() method, simply ensuring that the methods are called as you expect.
To do this properly, the class's dependencies (the interfaces defined above) should ideally be passed in to its constructor (i.e. dependency injection), but that's another story.
My advice would be to let your tests help with the design of your code. If you are struggling to execute statements or functions then your class is doing too much. Follow the single-responsibility-priciple, add some interfaces (allowing you to mock out the complicated stuff), maybe even read Fowler's 'Refactoring' or Feather's 'Working With Legacy Code', these taught me more about TDD than any other book to date.
It sounds like your run method is trying to do too much I would separate it up but if you're overall design won't allow it.
I would consider making the internal members protected then inheriting from the class in your test class to test them. Be careful though I have run into gotchas doing this because it doesn't reset the classes state so Setup and TearDown methods are essential.
Simple answer is - it depends. I've written a lot of unit tests that test the behaviour of private methods; I've done this so that I can be happy that I've covered various inputs and scenarios against the methods.
Now, many people think that testing private methods is a bad idea, since it's the public methods that matter. I get this idea, but in my case the public method for these private calls was also just a simple Run() method. The logic of the private methods included reading from config files and performing tasks on the file system, all "behind the scenes".
Had I just created a unit test that called Run() then I would have felt that my tests were incomplete. I used MSTest to create accessors for my class, so that I could call the private methods and create various scenarios (such as what happens when I run out of disk space, etc).
I guess it's each to their own with this private method testing do/or don't do argument. My advice is that, if you feel that your tests are incomplete, in other words, require more coverage, then I'd recommend testing the private methods.
Thanks everyone for the comments. I believe you are right - I need to seperate out into more seperate classes. This is one of the first projects im doing using true TDD, in that I did no class design at all and am just writing stub code... I gotta admit, I love writing code like this and the fact I can justify it to my mangagment with years of backed up successful results is purely friggin awesome =).
The only thing I'm iffy about is over-engineering and suffering from class-bloat, when I could have just written unit tests against my private methods... I guess common sense and programmers gut have to be used here... ?
C#, nUnit, and Rhino Mocks, if that turns out to be applicable.
My quest with TDD continues as I attempt to wrap tests around a complicated function. Let's say I'm coding a form that, when saved, has to also save dependent objects within the form...answers to form questions, attachments if available, and "log" entries (such as "blahblah updated the form." or "blahblah attached a file."). This save function also fires off emails to various people depending on how the state of the form changed during the save function.
This means in order to fully test out the form's save function with all of its dependencies, I have to inject five or six data providers to test out this one function and make sure everything fired off in the right way and order. This is cumbersome when writing the multiple chained constructors for the form object to insert the mocked providers. I think I'm missing something, either in the way of refactoring or simply a better way to set the mocked data providers.
Should I further study refactoring methods to see how this function can be simplified? How's the observer pattern sound, so that the dependent objects detect when the parent form is saved and handle themselves? I know that people say to split out the function so it can be tested...meaning I test out the individual save functions of each dependent object, but not the save function of the form itself, which dictates how each should save themselves in the first place?
First, if you are following TDD, then you don't wrap tests around a complicated function. You wrap the function around your tests. Actually, even that's not right. You interweave your tests and functions, writing both at almost exactly the same time, with the tests just a little ahead of the functions. See The Three Laws of TDD.
When you follow these three laws, and are diligent about refactoring, then you never wind up with "a complicated function". Rather you wind up with many, tested, simple functions.
Now, on to your point. If you already have "a complicated function" and you want to wrap tests around it then you should:
Add your mocks explicitly, instead of through DI. (e.g. something horrible like a 'test' flag and an 'if' statement that selects the mocks instead of the real objects).
Write a few tests in order to cover the basic operation of the component.
Refactor mercilessly, breaking up the complicated function into many little simple functions, while running your cobbled together tests as often as possible.
Push the 'test' flag as high as possible. As you refactor, pass your data sources down to the small simple functions. Don't let the 'test' flag infect any but the topmost function.
Rewrite tests. As you refactor, rewrite as many tests as possible to call the simple little functions instead of the big top-level function. You can pass your mocks into the simple functions from your tests.
Get rid of the 'test' flag and determine how much DI you really need. Since you have tests written at the lower levels that can insert mocks through areguments, you probably don't need to mock out many data sources at the top level anymore.
If, after all this, the DI is still cumbersome, then think about injecting a single object that holds references to all your data sources. It's always easier to inject one thing rather than many.
Use an AutoMocking container. There is one written for RhinoMocks.
Imagine you have a class with a lot of dependencies injected via constructor injection. Here's what it looks like to set it up with RhinoMocks, no AutoMocking container:
private MockRepository _mocks;
private BroadcastListViewPresenter _presenter;
private IBroadcastListView _view;
private IAddNewBroadcastEventBroker _addNewBroadcastEventBroker;
private IBroadcastService _broadcastService;
private IChannelService _channelService;
private IDeviceService _deviceService;
private IDialogFactory _dialogFactory;
private IMessageBoxService _messageBoxService;
private ITouchScreenService _touchScreenService;
private IDeviceBroadcastFactory _deviceBroadcastFactory;
private IFileBroadcastFactory _fileBroadcastFactory;
private IBroadcastServiceCallback _broadcastServiceCallback;
private IChannelServiceCallback _channelServiceCallback;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_view = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastListView>();
_addNewBroadcastEventBroker = _mocks.DynamicMock<IAddNewBroadcastEventBroker>();
_broadcastService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastService>();
_channelService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IChannelService>();
_deviceService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDeviceService>();
_dialogFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDialogFactory>();
_messageBoxService = _mocks.DynamicMock<IMessageBoxService>();
_touchScreenService = _mocks.DynamicMock<ITouchScreenService>();
_deviceBroadcastFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IDeviceBroadcastFactory>();
_fileBroadcastFactory = _mocks.DynamicMock<IFileBroadcastFactory>();
_broadcastServiceCallback = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastServiceCallback>();
_channelServiceCallback = _mocks.DynamicMock<IChannelServiceCallback>();
_presenter = new BroadcastListViewPresenter(
_addNewBroadcastEventBroker,
_broadcastService,
_channelService,
_deviceService,
_dialogFactory,
_messageBoxService,
_touchScreenService,
_deviceBroadcastFactory,
_fileBroadcastFactory,
_broadcastServiceCallback,
_channelServiceCallback);
_presenter.View = _view;
}
Now, here's the same thing with an AutoMocking container:
private MockRepository _mocks;
private AutoMockingContainer _container;
private BroadcastListViewPresenter _presenter;
private IBroadcastListView _view;
[SetUp]
public void SetUp()
{
_mocks = new MockRepository();
_container = new AutoMockingContainer(_mocks);
_container.Initialize();
_view = _mocks.DynamicMock<IBroadcastListView>();
_presenter = _container.Create<BroadcastListViewPresenter>();
_presenter.View = _view;
}
Easier, yes?
The AutoMocking container automatically creates mocks for every dependency in the constructor, and you can access them for testing like so:
using (_mocks.Record())
{
_container.Get<IChannelService>().Expect(cs => cs.ChannelIsBroadcasting(channel)).Return(false);
_container.Get<IBroadcastService>().Expect(bs => bs.Start(8));
}
Hope that helps. I know my testing life has been made a whole lot easier with the advent of the AutoMocking container.
You're right that it can be cumbersome.
Proponent of mocking methodology would point out that the code is written improperly to being with. That is, you shouldn't be constructing dependent objects inside this method. Rather, the injection API's should have functions that create the appropriate objects.
As for mocking up 6 different objects, that's true. However, if you also were unit-testing those systems, those objects should already have mocking infrastructure you can use.
Finally, use a mocking framework that does some of the work for you.
I don't have your code, but my first reaction is that your test is trying to tell you that your object has too many collaborators. In cases like this, I always find that there's a missing construct in there that should be packaged up into a higher level structure. Using an automocking container is just muzzling the feedback you're getting from your tests. See http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-bloated-constructor.html for a longer discussion.
In this context, I usually find statements along the lines of "this indicates that your object has too many dependencies" or "your object has too many collaborators" to be a fairly specious claim. Of course a MVC controller or a form is going to be calling lots of different services and objects to fulfill its duties; it is, after all, sitting at the top layer of the application. You can smoosh some of these dependencies together into higher-level objects (say, a ShippingMethodRepository and a TransitTimeCalculator get combined into a ShippingRateFinder), but this only goes so far, especially for these top-level, presentation-oriented objects. That's one less object to mock, but you've just obfuscated the actual dependencies via one layer of indirection, not actually removed them.
One blasphemous piece of advice is to say that if you are dependency injecting an object and creating an interface for it that is quite unlikely to ever change (Are you really going to drop in a new MessageBoxService while changing your code? Really?), then don't bother. That dependency is part of the expected behavior of the object and you should just test them together since the integration test is where the real business value lies.
The other blasphemous piece of advice is that I usually see little utility in unit testing MVC controllers or Windows Forms. Everytime I see someone mocking the HttpContext and testing to see if a cookie was set, I want to scream. Who cares if the AccountController set a cookie? I don't. The cookie has nothing to do with treating the controller as a black box; an integration test is what is needed to test its functionality (hmm, a call to PrivilegedArea() failed after Login() in the integration test). This way, you avoid invalidating a million useless unit tests if the format of the login cookie ever changes.
Save the unit tests for the object model, save the integration tests for the presentation layer, and avoid mock objects when possible. If mocking a particular dependency is hard, it's time to be pragmatic: just don't do the unit test and write an integration test instead and stop wasting your time.
The simple answer is that code that you are trying to test is doing too much. I think sticking to the Single Responsibility Principle might help.
The Save button method should only contain a top-level calls to delegate things to other objects. These objects can then be abstracted through interfaces. Then when you test the Save button method, you only test the interaction with mocked objects.
The next step is to write tests to these lower-level classes, but thing should get easier since you only test these in isolation. If you need a complex test setup code, this is a good indicator of a bad design (or a bad testing approach).
Recommended reading:
Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
Google's guide to writing testable code
Constructor DI isn't the only way to do DI. Since you're using C#, if your constructor does no significant work you could use Property DI. That simplifies things greatly in terms of your object's constructors at the expense of complexity in your function. Your function must check for the nullity of any dependent properties and throw InvalidOperation if they're null, before it begins work.
When it is hard to test something, it is usually symptom of the code quality, that the code is not testable (mentioned in this podcast, IIRC). The recommendation is to refactor the code so that the code will be easy to test. Some heuristics for deciding how to split the code into classes are the SRP and OCP. For more specific instructions, it would be necessary to see the code in question.