I've read https://aspnetboilerplate.com/Pages/Documents/EventBus-Domain-Events and also ABP's implementation of Entity event handlers https://github.com/aspnetboilerplate/aspnetboilerplate/tree/f10fa5205c780bcc27adfe38aaae631f412eb7df/src/Abp/Events/Bus/Entities
I have spent 8 hours at work trying to find a solution to my issue, but I failed to succeed.
I have certain entities that point to a single entity called DatumStatus, which records certain actions that generate different states, such as: approved, modified, reviewed, archived, etc.
I am trying to generate a generic EventHandler capable of modifying its status based on these actions.
An example based on a algorithm:
EventBus.Trigger(new ApproveEventData{
Repository = _certainRepository,
Ids = [1, 4, 5]
});
The handler itself would, in turn, handle this state transition
public void HandleEvent(ApproveEventData eventData)
{
eventData.Repository.Where(p => p.Id.IsIn(eventData.Ids)).ForEach(p => {
p.Approved = true;
p.ApprovalDate = DateTime.Now()
});
}
The problem is, I need to write a generic ApproveEventData and handler capable of firing the same HandleEvent for every single entities.
The "closest" I got is:
EventBus.Trigger(typeof(ApproveEventData<int>), (IEventData) new ApproveEventData<int> {
Repository = (IRepository<EntityWithStatus<int>, int>) _entityRepository,
Ids = selectedIds
});
[Serializable]
public class ApproveEventData<TPrimaryKey> : EventData
{
public IRepository<EntityWithStatus<TPrimaryKey>, TPrimaryKey> Repository;
public TPrimaryKey[] Ids;
}
The implementation above failes when casting the repository.
Could someone shed some light? Thanks!
I see two possible approaches.
Rely on covariance and contravariance. You can make the cast succeed by making an interface for EntityWithStatus an interface and making both IEntityWithStatus and IRepository covariant (add out to the generic type definition).
Rely on dynamic and leverage generic type inference. Basically have the Repository be dynamic.
I'd recommend number 1.
Related
This seems to be a problem that comes up a lot. I've been coming up with the same solution nearly every time but was curious if people have a better method of accomplishing this.
I have one class that is a list of instances of another class. The state of the parent class is dependent upon state of ALL the children
As an example. Say I have the following classes
class Box
{
int _objectId= <insert_unique_id>;
int _itemCount = 0;
public void AddItem()
{
_itemCount = Max(_itemCount + 1, 5);
}
public int GetId()
{
return _objectId;
}
public bool IsFull()
{
return _itemCount == 5
}
}
class BiggerBox
{
Map<int, Box> _boxes;
public void AddToBox(int id)
{
_boxes[id].AddItem();
}
public bool IsFull()
{
foreach(var box in _boxes.Values)
if(!box.IsFull())
return false;
return true;
}
}
All additions to a "Box" are done via the BiggerBox.AddToBox call. What I would like to do is be able to determine box.IsFull() without iterating over every single item every time we add an element.
Typically i accomplish this by keeping a SET or a separate collection of what items are full.
Curious, has anyone come up to an ingenious solution to this or is the simple answer that there is no other way?
There are two things you need to do in order to accomplish what you want:
Be able to control every entrypoint to your collection
React to changes to the objects in the collection
For instance, if the objects in the collection are mutable (meaning, they can change after being added to your collection) you need your main object to react to that change.
As you say, you could create a separate set of the objects that are full, but if the objects can change afterwards, when they change you either need to take them out of that set, or add them to it.
This means that in order for you to optimize this, you need some way to observe the changes to the underlying objects, for instance if they implement INotifyPropertyChanged or similar.
If the objects cannot change after being added to your main object, or you don't really care if they do, you just need to control every entrypoint, meaning that you basically need to add the necessary checks to your AddItem method.
For your particular types I would implement an event on the Box class so that when it is full, it fires the event. Your BiggerBox class would then hook into this event in order to observe when an underlying box becomes full.
You can upkeep the number of complete (or non-complete) boxes in BiggerBox class, and update it in all the functions.
E.g., in AddToBox it could be:
bool wasFull = _boxes[id].IsFull;
_boxes[id].AddItem();
if (!wasFull && _boxes[id].IsFull) // After this update box has become full.
completeBoxes += 1;
It is also possible to implement this upkeep procedure in other hypothetical functions (like RemoveFromBox, AddBox, RemoveBox, etc.)
Is there a way to pass data to dependencies registered with either Execution Context Scope or Lifetime Scope in Simple Injector?
One of my dependencies requires a piece of data in order to be constructed in the dependency chain. During HTTP and WCF requests, this data is easy to get to. For HTTP requests, the data is always present in either the query string or as a Request.Form parameter (and thus is available from HttpContext.Current). For WCF requests, the data is always present in the OperationContext.Current.RequestContext.RequestMessage XML, and can be parsed out. I have many command handler implementations that depend on an interface implementation that needs this piece of data, and they work great during HTTP and WCF scoped lifestyles.
Now I would like to be able to execute one or more of these commands using the Task Parallel Library so that it will execute in a separate thread. It is not feasible to move the piece of data out into a configuration file, class, or any other static artifact. It must initially be passed to the application either via HTTP or WCF.
I know how to create a hybrid lifestyle using Simple Injector, and already have one set up as hybrid HTTP / WCF / Execution Context Scope (command interfaces are async, and return Task instead of void). I also know how to create a command handler decorator that will start a new Execution Context Scope when needed. The problem is, I don't know how or where (or if I can) "save" this piece of data so that is is available when the dependency chain needs it to construct one of the dependencies.
Is it possible? If so, how?
Update
Currently, I have an interface called IProvideHostWebUri with two implementations: HttpHostWebUriProvider and WcfHostWebUriProvider. The interface and registration look like this:
public interface IProvideHostWebUri
{
Uri HostWebUri { get; }
}
container.Register<IProvideHostWebUri>(() =>
{
if (HttpContext.Current != null)
return container.GetInstance<HttpHostWebUriProvider>();
if (OperationContext.Current != null)
return container.GetInstance<WcfHostWebUriProvider>();
throw new NotSupportedException(
"The IProvideHostWebUri service is currently only supported for HTTP and WCF requests.");
}, scopedLifestyle); // scopedLifestyle is the hybrid mentioned previously
So ultimately unless I gut this approach, my goal would be to create a third implementation of this interface which would then depend on some kind of context to obtain the Uri (which is just constructed from a string in the other 2 implementations).
#Steven's answer seems to be what I am looking for, but I am not sure how to make the ITenantContext implementation immutable and thread-safe. I don't think it will need to be made disposable, since it just contains a Uri value.
So what you are basically saying is that:
You have an initial request that contains some contextual information captured in the request 'header'.
During this request you want to kick off a background operation (on a different thread).
The contextual information from the initial request should stay available when running in the background thread.
The short answer is that Simple Injector does not contain anything that allows you to do so. The solution is in creating a piece of infrastructure that allows moving this contextual information along.
Say for instance you are processing command handlers (wild guess here ;-)), you can specify a decorator as follows:
public class BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator<T> : ICommandHandler<T>
{
private readonly ITenantContext tenantContext;
private readonly Container container;
private readonly Func<ICommandHandler<T>> decorateeFactory;
public BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator(ITenantContext tenantContext,
Container container, Func<ICommandHandler<T>> decorateeFactory) {
this.tenantContext = tenantContext;
this.container = container;
this.decorateeFactory = decorateeFactory;
}
public void Handle(T command) {
// Capture the contextual info in a local variable
// NOTE: This object must be immutable and thread-safe.
var tenant = this.tenantContext.CurrentTenant;
// Kick off a new background operation
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
using (container.BeginExecutionContextScope()) {
// Load a service that allows setting contextual information
var context = this.container.GetInstance<ITenantContextApplier>();
// Set the context for this thread, before resolving the handler
context.SetCurrentTenant(tenant);
// Resolve the handler
var decoratee = this.decorateeFactory.Invoke();
// And execute it.
decoratee.Handle(command);
}
});
}
}
Note that in the example I make use of an imaginary ITenantContext abstraction, assuming that you need to supply the commands with information about the current tenant, but any other sort of contextual information will obviously do as well.
The decorator is a small piece of infrastructure that allows you to process commands in the background and it is its responsibility to make sure all the required contextual information is moved to the background thread as well.
To be able to do this, the contextual information is captured and used as a closure in the background thread. I created an extra abstraction for this, namely ITenantContextApplier. Do note that the tenant context implementation can implement both the ITenantContext and the ITenantContextApplier interface. If however you define the ITenantContextApplier in your composition root, it will be impossible for the application to change the context, since it does not have a dependency on ITenantContextApplier.
Here's an example:
// Base library
public interface ITenantContext { }
// Business Layer
public class SomeCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<Some> {
public SomeCommandHandler(ITenantContext context) { ... }
}
// Composition Root
public static class CompositionRoot {
// Make the ITenantContextApplier private so nobody can see it.
// Do note that this is optional; there's no harm in making it public.
private interface ITenantContextApplier {
void SetCurrentTenant(Tenant tenant);
}
private class AspNetTenantContext : ITenantContextApplier, ITenantContext {
// Implement both interfaces
}
private class BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator<T> { ... }
public static Container Bootstrap(Container container) {
container.RegisterPerWebRequest<ITenantContext, AspNetTenantContext>();
container.Register<ITenantContextApplier>(() =>
container.GetInstance<ITenantContext>() as ITenantContextApplier);
container.RegisterDecorator(typeof(ICommandHandler<>),
typeof(BackgroundProcessingCommandHandlerDecorator<>));
}
}
A different approach would be to just make the complete ITenantContext available to the background thread, but to be able to pull this off, you need to make sure that:
The implementation is immutable and thus thread-safe.
The implementation doesn't require disposing, because it will typically be disposed when the original request ends.
I've only began with DDD and currently trying to grasp the ways to do different things with it. I'm trying to design it using asynchronous events (no event-sourcing yet) with CQRS. Currently I'm stuck with validation of commands. I've read this question: Validation in a Domain Driven Design , however, none of the answers seem to cover complex validation across different aggregate roots.
Let's say I have these aggregate roots:
Client - contains list of enabled services, each service can have a value-object list of discounts and their validity.
DiscountOrder - an order to enable more discounts on some of the services of given client, contains order items with discount configuration.
BillCycle - each period when bills are generated is described by own billcycle.
Here's the usecase:
Discount order can be submitted. Each new discount period in discount order should not overlap with any of BillCycles. No two discounts of same type can be active at the same time on one service.
Basically, using Hibernate in CRUD style, this would look something similar to (java code, but question is language-agnostic):
public class DiscountProcessor {
...
#Transactional
public void processOrder(long orderId) {
DiscOrder order = orderDao.get(orderId);
BillCycle[] cycles = billCycleDao.getAll();
for (OrderItem item : order.getItems()) {
//Validate billcycle overlapping
for (BillCycle cycle : cycles) {
if (periodsOverlap(cycle.getPeriod(), item.getPeriod())) {
throw new PeriodsOverlapWithBillCycle(...);
}
}
//Validate discount overlapping
for (Discount d : item.getForService().getDiscounts()) {
if (d.getType() == item.getType() && periodsOverlap(d.getPeriod(), item.getPeriod())) {
throw new PeriodsOverlapWithOtherItems(...);
}
}
//Maybe some other validations in future or stuff
...
}
createDiscountsForOrder(order);
}
}
Now here are my thoughts on implementation:
Basically, the order can be in three states: "DRAFT", "VALIDATED" and "INVALID". "DRAFT" state can contain any kind of invalid data, "VALIDATED" state should only contain valid data, "INVALID" should contain invalid data.
Therefore, there should be a method which tries to switch the state of the order, let's call it order.validate(...). The method will perform validations required for shift of state (DRAFT -> VALIDATED or DRAFT -> INVALID) and if successful - change the state and transmit a OrderValidated or OrderInvalidated events.
Now, what I'm struggling with, is the signature of said order.validate(...) method. To validate the order, it requires several other aggregates, namely BillCycle and Client. I can see these solutions:
Put those aggregates directly into the validate method, like
order.validateWith(client, cycles) or order.validate(new
OrderValidationData(client, cycles)). However, this seems a bit
hackish.
Extract the required information from client and cycle
into some kind of intermediate validation data object. Something like
order.validate(new OrderValidationData(client.getDiscountInfos(),
getListOfPeriods(cycles)).
Do validation in a separate service
method which can do whatever it wants with whatever aggregates it
wants (basically similar to CRUD example above). However, this seems
far from DDD, as method order.validate() will become a dummy state
setter, and calling this method will make it possible to bring an
order unintuitively into an corrupted state (status = "valid" but
contains invalid data because nobody bothered to call validation
service).
What is the proper way to do it, and could it be that my whole thought process is wrong?
Thanks in advance.
What about introducing a delegate object to manipulate Order, Client, BillCycle?
class OrderingService {
#Injected private ClientRepository clientRepository;
#Injected private BillingRepository billRepository;
Specification<Order> validSpec() {
return new ValidOrderSpec(clientRepository, billRepository);
}
}
class ValidOrderSpec implements Specification<Order> {
#Override public boolean isSatisfied(Order order) {
Client client = clientRepository.findBy(order.getClientId());
BillCycle[] billCycles = billRepository.findAll();
// validate here
}
}
class Order {
void validate(ValidOrderSpecification<Order> spec) {
if (spec.isSatisfiedBy(this) {
validated();
} else {
invalidated();
}
}
}
The pros and cons of your three solutions, from my perspective:
order.validateWith(client, cycles)
It is easy to test the validation with order.
#file: OrderUnitTest
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = new ClientFixture()...build()
BillCycle[] cycles = new BillCycleFixture()...build()
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build();
subject.validateWith(client, cycles);
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
so far so good, but there seems to be some duplicate test code for DiscountOrderProcess.
#file: DiscountProcessor
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = new ClientFixture()...build()
BillCycle[] cycles = new BillCycleFixture()...build()
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build()
DiscountProcessor subject = ...
given(clientRepository).findBy(client.getId()).thenReturn(client);
given(cycleRepository).findAll().thenReturn(cycles);
given(orderRepository).findBy(order.getId()).thenReturn(order);
subject.processOrder(order.getId());
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
#or in mock style
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = mock(Client.class)
BillCycle[] cycles = array(mock(BillCycle.class))
Order order = mock(Order.class)
DiscountProcessor subject = ...
given(clientRepository).findBy(client.getId()).thenReturn(client);
given(cycleRepository).findAll().thenReturn(cycles);
given(orderRepository).findBy(order.getId()).thenReturn(order);
given(client).....
given(cycle1)....
subject.processOrder(order.getId());
verify(order).validated();
}
order.validate(new OrderValidationData(client.getDiscountInfos(),
getListOfPeriods(cycles))
Same as the above one, you still need to prepare data for both OrderUnitTest and discountOrderProcessUnitTest. But I think this one is better as order is not tightly coupled with Client and BillCycle.
order.validate()
Similar to my idea if you keep validation in the domain layer. Sometimes it is just not any entity's responsibility, consider domain service or specification object.
#file: OrderUnitTest
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Client client = new ClientFixture()...build()
BillCycle[] cycles = new BillCycleFixture()...build()
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build();
Specification<Order> spec = new ValidOrderSpec(clientRepository, cycleRepository);
given(clientRepository).findBy(client.getId()).thenReturn(client);
given(cycleRepository).findAll().thenReturn(cycles);
subject.validate(spec);
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
#file: DiscountProcessor
#Test public void should_change_to_valid_when_xxxx() {
Order order = new OrderFixture()...build()
Specification<Order> spec = mock(ValidOrderSpec.class);
DiscountProcessor subject = ...
given(orderingService).validSpec().thenReturn(spec);
given(spec).isSatisfiedBy(order).thenReturn(true);
given(orderRepository).findBy(order.getId()).thenReturn(order);
subject.processOrder(order.getId());
assertThat(order.getStatus(), is(VALID));
}
Do the 3 possible states reflect your domain or is that just extrapolation ? I'm asking because your sample code doesn't seem to change Order state but throw an exception when it's invalid.
If it's acceptable for the order to stay DRAFT for a short period of time after being submitted, you could have DiscountOrder emit a DiscountOrderSubmitted domain event. A handler catches the event and (delegates to a Domain service that) examines if the submit is legit or not. It would then issue a ChangeOrderState command to make the order either VALIDATED or INVALID.
You could even suppose that the change is legit by default and have processOrder() directly take it to VALIDATED, until proven otherwise by a subsequent INVALID counter-order given by the validation service.
This is not much different from your third solution or Hippoom's one though, except every step of the process is made explicit with its own domain event. I guess that with your current aggregate design you're doomed to have a third party orchestrator (as un-DDD and transaction script-esque as it may sound) that controls the process, since the DiscountOrder aggregate doesn't have native access to all information to tell if a given transformation is valid or not.
I'd like to change the representation of C# Doubles to rounded Int64 with a four decimal place shift in the serialization C# Driver's stack for MongoDB. In other words, store (Double)29.99 as (Int64)299900
I'd like this to be transparent to my app. I've had a look at custom serializers but I don't want to override everything and then switch on the Type with fallback to the default, as that's a bit messy.
I can see that RegisterSerializer() won't let me add one for an existing type, and that BsonDefaultSerializationProvider has a static list of primitive serializers and it's marked as internal with private members so I can't easily subclass.
I can also see that it's possible to RepresentAs Int64 for Doubles, but this is a cast not a conversion. I need essentially a cast AND a conversion in both serialization directions.
I wish I could just give the default serializer a custom serializer to override one of it's own, but that would mean a dirty hack.
Am I missing a really easy way?
You can definitely do this, you just have to get the timing right. When the driver starts up there are no serializers registered. When it needs a serializer, it looks it up in the dictionary where it keeps track of the serializers it knows about (i.e. the ones that have been registered). Only it it can't find one in the dictionary does it start figuring out where to get one (including calling the serialization providers) and if it finds one it registers it.
The limitation in RegisterSerializer is there so that you can't replace an existing serializer that has already been used. But that doesn't mean you can't register your own if you do it early enough.
However, keep in mind that registering a serializer is a global operation, so if you register a custom serializer for double it will be used for all doubles, which could lead to unexpected results!
Anyway, you could write the custom serializer something like this:
public class CustomDoubleSerializer : BsonBaseSerializer
{
public override object Deserialize(BsonReader bsonReader, Type nominalType, Type actualType, IBsonSerializationOptions options)
{
var rep = bsonReader.ReadInt64();
return rep / 100.0;
}
public override void Serialize(BsonWriter bsonWriter, Type nominalType, object value, IBsonSerializationOptions options)
{
var rep = (long)((double)value * 100);
bsonWriter.WriteInt64(rep);
}
}
And register it like this:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(typeof(double), new CustomDoubleSerializer());
You could test it using the following class:
public class C
{
public int Id;
public double X;
}
and this code:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializer(typeof(double), new CustomDoubleSerializer());
var c = new C { Id = 1, X = 29.99 };
var json = c.ToJson();
Console.WriteLine(json);
var r = BsonSerializer.Deserialize<C>(json);
Console.WriteLine(r.X);
You can also use your own serialization provider to tell Mongo which serializer to use for certain types, which I ended up doing to mitigate some of the timing issues mentioned when trying to override existing serializers. Here's an example of a serialisation provider that overrides how to serialize decimals:
public class CustomSerializationProvider : IBsonSerializationProvider
{
public IBsonSerializer GetSerializer(Type type)
{
if (type == typeof(decimal)) return new DecimalSerializer(BsonType.Decimal128);
return null; // falls back to Mongo defaults
}
}
If you return null from your custom serialization provider, it will fall back to using Mongo's default serialization provider.
Once you've written your provider, you just need to register it:
BsonSerializer.RegisterSerializationProvider(new CustomSerializationProvider());
I looked through the latest iteration of the driver's code and checked if there's some sort of backdoor to set custom serializers. I am afraid there's none; you should open an issue in the project's bug tracker if you think this needs to be looked at for future iterations of the driver (https://jira.mongodb.org/).
Personally, I'd open a ticket -- and if a quick workaround is necessary or required, I'd subclass DoubleSerializer, implement the new behavior, and then use Reflection to inject it into either MongoDB.Bson.Serialization.Serializers.DoubleSerializer.__instance or MongoDB.Bson.Serialization.BsonDefaultSerializationProvider.__serializers.
I'm using Linq and having trouble doing something that I believe should be trivial. I want to return data from one layer so it can be used independently of linq in another layer.
Suppose I have a Data Access Layer. It knows about the entity framework and how to interact with it. But, it doesn't care who accesses it. The one interesting requirement I have is that the queries in the entity framework return projected data that is not part of the Entity Model itself. Please don't ask me to change this part of the requirement and make POCOs for each return type, as it is not the best design given the problem I am trying to solve. Below is an example.
public class ChartData
{
public function <<returnType??>> GetData()
{
MyEntities context = new MyEntities();
var results = from context.vManyColumnsOfData as v
where v.CompanyName = "acme"
select new {Year = v.SalesYear, Income = v.Income};
return ??;
}
}
Then, I would like to have an ASP.Net UI layer be able to call into the Data Access Layer to get the data in order to bind it to a control. The UI layer should have no notion of where the data came from. It should only know that it has the data it needs to bind. Below is an example.
protected void chart_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// set some chart properties
chart.Skin = "Default";
...
// Set the data source
ChartData dataMgr = new ChartData();
<<returnType?>> data = dataMgr.GetData();
chart.DataSource = data;
chart.DataBind();
}
What is the best way to send linq projected data back to another layer?
If you don't need to use the projected type statically, just return IEnumerable<object>.
Please don't ask me to change this part of the requirement and make
POCOs for each return type, as it is not the best design given the
problem I am trying to solve.
I feel like I should rightly ignore this, as the best thing to do is to return a defined type. Anonymous types are useful when they are wholly contained within the method that creates them. Once you start passing them around, it is time to go ahead and give them the proper class treatment.
However, to live within your imposed limitations, you can return IEnumerable<object> from the method and use that or var at the callsite and rely upon the dynamic binding of the control to get at the data. It's not going to help you if you need to deal with the object programmatically, but it will serve fine for databinding.
You can not return an anonymous type, so basically for this you will need POCO's even though you don't want them.
"not the best design given the problem I am trying to solve"
Could you explain what you are trying to achieve a little more? It might be possible to return some type of list containing a dictionary of items (ie rows and columns). Think something like an untyped dataset (yuck)
Your GetData method can use IEnumerable (the "old" non-generic interface) as its return type.
Any dynamic resolution (e.g. ASP.NET or XAML bindings) should work as expected, which seems to be what you want to do.
However, if you want to use the results in your code, you will probably have to resort to .NET 4's dynamic keyword.
The following example can be run in LINQPad (in "C# Program" mode) and illustrates this:
void Main()
{
var v = GetData();
foreach (dynamic element in v)
{
((string)element.Name).Dump();
}
}
public IEnumerable GetData()
{
return from i in Enumerable.Range(1, 10)
select new
{
Name = "Item " + i,
Value = i
};
}
Keep in mind that, design-wise, coding like this will make most people frown and can affect performance.