Can Ninject resolve abstract dependencies after the object is initialised? - asp.net-mvc-3

Does anyone know if it's possible to use Ninject to resolve any unresolved abstract dependencies outside of the instantiation process? I've just been looking into constructor injection vs property/method/field injection, but it looks to me as though Ninject is still expecting to be the creator of the type using the IKernel.Get<>() method.
Basically, we're using MVC3 to build our product, and we've come up against a situation where we want the default ModelBinder to map form values to an instance of the object, and then be able to call a method on the submitted ViewModel that is dependent on an abstract interface e.g.
public class InviteFriend {
[Required]
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public void Execute() {
var user = IUserRepository.GetUser(this.EmailAddress);
if (user == null) {
IUserRepository.SaveInvite(this.EmailAddress);
}
MailMessage toSend = new MailMessage(); // Obviously some logic to prepare the body, subject and other mail properties
SmtpClient.Send(toSend);
}
}
where the controller action would receive InviteFriend as the method argument. We want Ninject to be able to resolve that IUserRepository dependency, but I can't quite work out how to since the object itself is instantiated by the MVC ModelBinder rather than Ninject IKernel.Get<>().
Maybe the solution is a Ninject-based ModelBinder, or does that seem a really bad idea?
EDIT TO ADD: After the comments below, I realise that my hastily mocked-up code sample doesn't really reflect what we're facing. I've updated the code sample to reflect that the logic for InviteFriend.Execute() is more complex than just calling a method on one repository. Potentially, this is logic representing a discrete task that could co-ordinate interactions between multiple different domain objects and multiple repositories. The repositories are defined abstractly, and ideally would be resolved by Ninject.

I think what you are looking for is somewhat the following scenario:
public class InviteFriend {
[Required]
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
// More information
}
public interface ICommand {
void Execute();
}
public class InviteFriendCommand : ICommand
{
public InviteFriend(InviteFriend info, IUserRepository userRepo, IMailSender mailSender) {
this.inviteFriend = info;
this.userRepo = userRepo;
this.mailSender = mailSender;
}
public void Execute() {
var user = this.userRepo.GetUser(this.inviteFriend.EmailAddress);
if (user == null) {
this.userRepo.SaveInvite(this.inviteFriend.EmailAddress);
}
MailMessage toSend = new MailMessage(); // Obviously some logic to prepare the body, subject and other mail properties
this.mailSender.Send(toSend);
}
}
public interface ICommandFactory {
ICommand CreateInviteFriendCommand(InviteFriend info);
}
public class CommandFactory {
public CommandFactory(IResolutionRoot resolutionRoot) {
this.resolutionRoot = resolutionRoot;
}
ICommand CreateInviteFriendCommand(InviteFriend info) {
this.resolutionRoot.Get<InviteFriendCommand>(new ConstructorArgument("info", info));
}
}
public class YourController {
// Somewhere
var command = this.commandFactory.CreateInviteFriendCommand(info);
command.Execute();
}
public class YourModule : NinjectModule {
override Load() {
Bind<IUserRepository>().To<UserRepo>().InRequestScope();
Bind<ICommandFactory>().To<CommandFactory>().InRequestScope();
Bind<InviteFriendCommand>().ToSelf().InRequestScope();
}
}
Forgive me when you need to tweak it a bit. I hacked it together with my out of brain compiler ;)

Thank you for all your comments, but I've subsequently found the information I was looking for.
The answer is that it is possible to inject dependencies post-instantiation with Ninject. The solution is as follows:
public class InviteFriend {
[Inject]
public IUserRepository UserRepo { get; set; }
[Required]
public string EmailAddress { get; set; }
public void Execute() {
var user = UserRepo.GetUser(this.EmailAddress);
if (user == null) {
UserRepo.SaveInvite(this.EmailAddress);
}
MailMessage toSend = new MailMessage(); // Obviously some logic to prepare the body, subject and other mail properties
SmtpClient.Send(toSend);
}
}
With client code then using the Ninject kernel as follows:
IKernel container = new StandardKernel(new ModuleWithMyBindings());
container.Inject(instanceOfInviteFriend);
The code itself is a bit more sophisticated than that i.e. I'm not instantiating a new IKernel each time I need it.
I realise that this is architecturally less pure than some of the suggestions put forward in comments, but in the spirit of YAGNI, this is good enough for now and we can always refactor later on with some of the good suggestions in Daniel's answer. However, this was a question about the capabilities of Ninject rather than an architectural review question, and this is what I consider the answer to my own question :)

Related

ASP NET Boilerplate, Login saved in ABPSession

I'm new on the asp net boilerplate framework, and i created a new mvc project multipage web application, without module zero.
I would like to use the AbpSession class that from what I understand has inside the user id that is taken over Thread.CurrentPrincipal.
However, I do not understand how to do after login, to save the user id in the Thread.CurrentPrincipal.
I've searched in the network and found several solutions, but in the AbpSession class the user id is always null.
The most optimal solution I found was this:
IList<Claim> claimCollection = new List<Claim>
{
new Claim(AbpClaimTypes.UserId, "5")
};
ClaimsIdentity claimsIdentity = new ClaimsIdentity(claimCollection);
var principal = new ClaimsPrincipal(claimsIdentity);
Thread.CurrentPrincipal = principal;
It's the first time I use principal and identity and despite being documented I did not quite understand how to use them with asp net boilerplate, and I did not find sample codes.
Do you know how to tell me the right way or tell me where to find some functional codes?
Thanks
Start expanding AbpSession
The last section has cleared the way of thinking. Let's roll up our sleeves and expand in this section.
AbpSession attributes have been injected into three base classes: Application Service, AbpController and ABP ApiController.
So we need to extend AbpSession at the domain level, which is the project at the end of. Core.
Now suppose we need to extend an Email attribute.
Extending IAbpSession
Locate the project at the end of. Core, add the Extensions folder, and then add the IAbpSession Extension interface inherited from IAbpSession:
namespace LearningMpaAbp.Extensions
{
public interface IAbpSessionExtension : IAbpSession
{
string Email { get; }
}
}
Implementing IAbpSession Extension
Add the AbpSession Extension class, which is based on Claims AbpSession and implements the IAbpSession Extension interface.
namespace LearningMpaAbp.Extensions
{
public class AbpSessionExtension : ClaimsAbpSession, IAbpSessionExtension, ITransientDependency
{
public AbpSessionExtension(
IPrincipalAccessor principalAccessor,
IMultiTenancyConfig multiTenancy,
ITenantResolver tenantResolver,
IAmbientScopeProvider<SessionOverride> sessionOverrideScopeProvider) :
base(principalAccessor, multiTenancy, tenantResolver, sessionOverrideScopeProvider)
{}
public string Email => GetClaimValue(ClaimTypes.Email);
private string GetClaimValue(string claimType)
{
var claimsPrincipal = PrincipalAccessor.Principal;
var claim = claimsPrincipal?.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == claimType);
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(claim?.Value))
return null;
return claim.Value;
}
}
}
UserClaimsPrincipalFactory.cs
//Override CreateAsync method to add your custom claim
public override async Task<ClaimsPrincipal> CreateAsync(User user)
{
var claim = await base.CreateAsync(user);
claim.Identities.First().AddClaim(new Claim(ClaimTypes.Email, user.EmailAddress));
return claim;
}
Replace the injected AbbSession attribute
First replace the injected ABP Session in AbpController
Locate. ApplicationxxxControllerBase:AbpController. CS and inject IAbpSession Extension with attributes. Add the following code:
//AbpSession Hiding Parent Class
public new IAbpSessionExtension AbpSession { get; set; }
Replace the injected ABP Session in Application Service
Locate. ApplicationxxxAppServiceBase.cs. Introduce IAbpSession Extension with attributes, and add the following code as well:
//AbpSession Hiding Parent Class
public new IAbpSessionExtension AbpSession { get; set; }
Chaneg the injected ABP Session in Views AbpRazorPage
Locate. ApplicationxxxRazorPage.cs. Introduce IAbpSession Extension with attributes, and add the following code as well:
[RazorInject]
public IAbpSessionExtension AbpSession { get; set; }
Altough the question is very general, i would like to share you some code about how to add custom field to AbpSession in ASP.NET Core.
MyAppSession.cs
//Define your own session and add your custom field to it
//Then, you can inject MyAppSession and use it's new property in your project.
public class MyAppSession : ClaimsAbpSession, ITransientDependency
{
public MyAppSession(
IPrincipalAccessor principalAccessor,
IMultiTenancyConfig multiTenancy,
ITenantResolver tenantResolver,
IAmbientScopeProvider<SessionOverride> sessionOverrideScopeProvider) :
base(principalAccessor, multiTenancy, tenantResolver, sessionOverrideScopeProvider)
{
}
public string UserEmail
{
get
{
var userEmailClaim = PrincipalAccessor.Principal?.Claims.FirstOrDefault(c => c.Type == "Application_UserEmail");
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(userEmailClaim?.Value))
{
return null;
}
return userEmailClaim.Value;
}
}
}
UserClaimsPrincipalFactory.cs
//Override CreateAsync method to add your custom claim
public override async Task<ClaimsPrincipal> CreateAsync(User user)
{
var claim = await base.CreateAsync(user);
claim.Identities.First().AddClaim(new Claim("Application_UserEmail", user.EmailAddress));
return claim;
}

How to pass Data to different Views in MVVM Light?

I am kinda unclear on how to pass data to other views. I gathered there are 3 ways to do this but I not sure how to do 2 of them.
Send data through messenger(not sure if you can send objects otherwise I can see thing getting pretty messy if you have to send like 10 pieces of data or something like that along).
Somehow pass the data through the constructor of the new view model. I say "somehow" as I am unclear how to do that when using an IOC container(in this case the built in one).
Passing the data through a parameter. I seen a couple of tutorials that show you how to do navigation for the windows phone but none really talk about parameter passing. I am guessing this would still be an option.
From what I heard is that Option 1 is sort of the old way of doing it. Option 2 seems to be a newer way and better way to do it but I cannot find any examples on people showing how to do it.
I don't know how to do it because the Ioc should be creating the instance of the view so how do you pass in data into it when that data does not exist?
The two main ways I do this is:
1)Use the messenger:
Sender class:
public class TrafficLight
{
public string Color{get;set;}
public TimeSpand Duration{get;set;}
}
public class TrafficLightService
{
public void SendLight(TrafficLight light)
{
Messenger.Default.Send(light);
}
}
Receiver:
public class MyViewModel
{
public MyViewModel()
{
Messenger.Default.Register<TrafficLight>(DoSomethingWithTrafficLight);
}
private void DoSomethingWithTrafficLight(TrafficLight light)
{
}
}
What happens here is that the source object is using the Messenger as an event broker. Object A doesn't need to know about object B, they just both need to know about the messenger.
2)
Just use dependency injection:
public class TrafficLight
{
public string Color{get;set;}
public TimeSpand Duration{get;set;}
}
public class LightEventArgs:EventArgs
{
public LightEventArgs(TrafficLight light)
{
_light=light;
}
public TrafficLight Light{get{return _light;}}
}
public interface ITrafficLightService
{
void SendLight(TrafficLight light);
public event EventHandler<LightEventArgs> TrafficLightSet;
}
public class TrafficLightService
{
public void SendLight(TrafficLight light)
{
Messenger.Default.Send(light);
}
public event EventHandler<LightEventArgs> TrafficLightSet;
}
public class TrafficLightSenderViewModel
{
public TrafficLightSenderViewModel(ITrafficLightService trafficLightService)
{
_trafficLightService=trafficLightService;
_trafficLightService.Send(new TrafficLight{Color="Red"});
}
}
public class TrafficLightReceiverViewModel
{
public TrafficLightReceiverViewModel(ITrafficLightService trafficLightService)
{
_trafficLightService=trafficLightService;
_trafficLightService.TrafficLightSet+= TrafficLightNotification;
}
private void TrafficLightNotification(TrafficLightEventArgs args)
{
DoSomethingWithTheLight(args.Light);
}
}
public class ViewModelLocator
{
public ViewModelLocator()
{
ServiceLocator.SetLocatorProvider(() => SimpleIoc.Default);
if (ViewModelBase.IsInDesignModeStatic)
{
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<ITrafficLightService, Design.TrafficLightService>();
}
else
{
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<ITrafficLightService, TrafficLightService>();
}
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<TrafficLightSenderViewModel>();
SimpleIoc.Default.Register<TrafficLightReceiverViewModel>();
}
public MainViewModel Sender
{
get { return SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<TrafficLightSenderViewModel>(); }
}
public MainViewModel Receiver
{
get { return SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<TrafficLightReceiverViewModel>(); }
}
}
This is a bigger example and more complex.
Lets walk through this step by step:
In MVVM Light we use the ViewModelLocator for 2 things: 1)To register all our viewmodels and services.
Provide a way to allow the View to get a viewmodel in XAML
When we try to resolve a ViewModel
SimpleIoc.Default.GetInstance<TrafficLightReceiverViewModel>();
SimpleIoc looks at whether the viewmodel has any dependencies. In our case we do, we need an ITrafficLightService for both our viewmodels. What happens is that SimpleIoc sees if it can resolve that class and, in the process, checks to see if ITrafficLightService has any dependencies that need resolving as well. If SimpleIoc can resolve the chain of dependencies required to instantiate your viewmodel it does so and then hands back a fully built object.

EF and repository pattern - ending up with multiple DbContexts in one controller - any issues (performance, data integrity)?

Most of my knowledge of ASP.NET MVC 3 comes from reading through the book Pro ASP.NET MVC 3 Framework by Adam Freeman and Steven Senderson. For my test application I have tried to stick to their examples very closely. I am using the repository pattern plus Ninject and Moq which means that unit testing work quite well (i.e. without needing to pull data from the database).
In the book repositories are used like this:
public class EFDbTestChildRepository
{
private EFDbContext context = new EFDbContext();
public IQueryable<TestChild> TestChildren
{
get { return context.TestChildren; }
}
public void SaveTestChild(TestChild testChild)
{
if (testChild.TestChildID == 0)
{
context.TestChildren.Add(testChild);
}
else
{
context.Entry(testChild).State = EntityState.Modified;
}
context.SaveChanges();
}
}
And here is the DbContext that goes with it:
public class EFDbContext : DbContext
{
public DbSet<TestParent> TestParents { get; set; }
public DbSet<TestChild> TestChildren { get; set; }
}
Please note: to keep things simple in this extracted example I have left out the interface ITestChildRepository here which Ninject would then use.
In other sources I have seen a more general approach for the repository where one single repository is enough for the whole application. Obviously in my case I end up with quite a list of repositories in my application - basically one for each entity in my domain model. Not sure about the pros and cons about the two approaches - I just followed the book to be on the safe side.
To finally get to my question: each repository has its own DbContext - private EFDbContext context = new EFDbContext();. Do I risk ending up with multiple DbContexts within one request? And would that lead to any significant performance overhead? How about a potential for conflicts between the contexts and any consequences to the data integrity?
Here is an example where I ended up with more than one repository within a controller.
My two database tables are linked with a foreign key relationship. My domain model classes:
public class TestParent
{
public int TestParentID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Comment { get; set; }
public virtual ICollection<TestChild> TestChildren { get; set; }
}
public class TestChild
{
public int TestChildID { get; set; }
public int TestParentID { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public string Comment { get; set; }
public virtual TestParent TestParent { get; set; }
}
The web application contains a page that allows the user to create a new TestChild. On it there is a selectbox that contains a list of available TestParents to pick from. This is what my controller looks like:
public class ChildController : Controller
{
private EFDbTestParentRepository testParentRepository = new EFDbTestParentRepository();
private EFDbTestChildRepository testChildRepository = new EFDbTestChildRepository();
public ActionResult List()
{
return View(testChildRepository.TestChildren);
}
public ViewResult Edit(int testChildID)
{
ChildViewModel cvm = new ChildViewModel();
cvm.TestChild = testChildRepository.TestChildren.First(tc => tc.TestChildID == testChildID);
cvm.TestParents = testParentRepository.TestParents;
return View(cvm);
}
public ViewResult Create()
{
ChildViewModel cvm = new ChildViewModel();
cvm.TestChild = new TestChild();
cvm.TestParents = testParentRepository.TestParents;
return View("Edit", cvm);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Edit(TestChild testChild)
{
try
{
if (ModelState.IsValid)
{
testChildRepository.SaveTestChild(testChild);
TempData["message"] = string.Format("Changes to test child have been saved: {0} (ID = {1})",
testChild.Name,
testChild.TestChildID);
return RedirectToAction("List");
}
}
catch (DataException)
{
//Log the error (add a variable name after DataException)
ModelState.AddModelError("", "Unable to save changes. Try again, and if the problem persists see your system administrator.");
}
// something wrong with the data values
return View(testChild);
}
}
It's not enough to have an EFDbTestChildRepository available but I also need an EFDbTestParentRepository. Both of them are assigned to private variables of the controller - and voila, it seems to me that two DbContexts have been created. Or is that not correct?
To avoid the issue I tried using EFDbTestChildRepository to get to the TestParents. But that obviously will only bring up those that are already hooked up to at least one TestChild - so not what I want.
Here is the code for the view model:
public class ChildViewModel
{
public TestChild TestChild { get; set; }
public IQueryable<TestParent> TestParents { get; set; }
}
Please let me know if I forgot to include some relevant code. Thanks so much for your advice!
There won't be a performance problem (unless we are talking about nanoseconds, instantiating a context is very cheap) and you won't have damaged your data integrity (before that happens you'll get exceptions).
But the approach is very limited and will work only in very simple situations. Multiple contexts will lead to problems in many scenarios. As an example: Suppose you want to create a new child for an existing parent and would try it with the following code:
var parent = parentRepo.TestParents.Single(p => p.Id == 1);
var child = new Child { TestParent = parent };
childrenRepo.SaveTestChild(child);
This simple code won't work because parent is already attached to the context inside of parentRepo but childrenRepo.SaveTestChild will try to attach it to the context inside of childrenRepo which will cause an exception because an entity must not be attached to another context. (Here is actually a workaround because you could set the FK property instead of loading the parent: child.TestParentID = 1. But without a FK property it would be a problem.)
How to solve such a problem?
One approach could be to extend the EFDbTestChildRepository by a new property:
public IQueryable<TestParent> TestParents
{
get { return context.TestParents; }
}
In the example code above you could then use only one repository and the code would work. But as you can see, the name "EFDbTest Child Repository" doesn't really fit anymore to the purpose of the new repository. It should be now "EFDbTest ParentAndChild Repository".
I would call this the Aggregate Root approach which means that you create one repository not for only one entity but for a few entities which are closely related to each other and have navigation properties between them.
An alternative solution is to inject the context into the repositories (instead of creating it in the repositories) to make sure that every repository uses the same context. (The context is often abstracted into a IUnitOfWork interface.) Example:
public class MyController : Controller
{
private readonly MyContext _context;
public MyController()
{
_context = new MyContext();
}
public ActionResult SomeAction(...)
{
var parentRepo = new EFDbTestParentRepository(_context);
var childRepo = new EFDbTestChildRepository(_context);
//...
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
_context.Dispose();
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}
This gives you a single context per controller you can use in multiple repositories.
The next step might be to create a single context per request by dependency injection, like...
private readonly MyContext _context;
public MyController(MyContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
...and then configuring the IOC container to create a single context instance which gets injected into perhaps multiple controllers.
Do I risk ending up with multiple DbContexts within one request?
Yes. Each instance of a repository is going to instantiate its own DbContexts instances. Depending on the size and use of the application, this may not be a problem although it is not a very scalable approach. There are several ways of handling this though. In my web projects I add the DbContext(s) to the Request's Context.Item collection, this way it is available to all classes that require it. I use Autofac (similar to Ninject) to control what DbContexts are created within specific scenarios and how they are stored, e.g. I have a different 'session manager' for a WCF context to the one for a Http context.
And would that lead to any significant performance overhead?
Yes, but again not massively if the application is relatively small. As it grows though, you may notice the overhead.
How about a potential for conflicts between the contexts and any
consequences to the data integrity?
One of the reasons for using an ORM like this is so that changes can be maintained within the DbContext. If you are instantiating multiple context instances per request you lose this benefit. You wouldn't notice conflicts or any impact of the integrity per se unless you were handling a lot of updates asynchronously.
As promised I post my solution.
I came across your question because I was having trouble with the IIS application pool memory growing beyond limits and having multiple DBContexts was one of my suspects. In retrospect it is fair to say that there were other causes for my trouble. However, it challenged me to find a better layer based design for my repository.
I found this excellent blog: Correct use of Repository and Unit Of Work patterns in ASP.NET MVC leading me to the right direction. The redesign is based on the UnitOfWork pattern. It enables me to have just one constructor parameter for all my controllers instead of "never ending constructor parameters". And after that, I was able to introduce proactive caching as well, which solved a great deal of the earlier mentioned trouble I was having.
Now I only have these classes:
IUnitOfWork
EFUnitOfWork
IGenericRepository
EFGenericRepository
See the referred blog for complete information and implementation of these classes. Just to give an example, IUnitOfWork contains repository definitions for all entities that I need, like:
namespace MyWebApp.Domain.Abstract
{
public interface IUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
IGenericRepository<AAAAA> AAAAARepository { get; }
IGenericRepository<BBBBB> BBBBBRepository { get; }
IGenericRepository<CCCCC> CCCCCRepository { get; }
IGenericRepository<DDDDD> DDDDDRepository { get; }
// etc.
string Commit();
}
}
The Dependency Injection (DI) is just one statement (I use Ninject):
ninjectKernel.Bind<IUnitOfWork>().To<EFUnitOfWork>();
The Controllers-constructors are maintainable:
public class MyController : BaseController
{
private MyModel mdl = new MyModel();
private IUnitOfWork _context;
public MyController(IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)
{
_context = unitOfWork;
// intialize whatever needs to be exposed to the View:
mdl.whatever = unitOfWork.SomeRepository.AsQueryable();
}
// etc.
Within the Controller I can use _context to access all repositories, if needed. The nice part of it, is that it needs just a single Commit()-call to save changed data for all repositories:
_context.Commit();

Issues with my MVC repository pattern and StructureMap

I have a repository pattern i created on top of the ado.net entity framework. When i tried to implement StructureMap to decouple my objects, i kept getting StackOverflowException (infinite loop?). Here is what the pattern looks like:
IEntityRepository where TEntity : class
Defines basic CRUD members
MyEntityRepository : IEntityRepository
Implements CRUD members
IEntityService where TEntity : class
Defines CRUD members which return common types for each member.
MyEntityService : IEntityService
Uses the repository to retrieve data and return a common type as a result (IList, bool and etc)
The problem appears to be with my Service layer. More specifically with the constructors.
public PostService(IValidationDictionary validationDictionary)
: this(validationDictionary, new PostRepository())
{ }
public PostService(IValidationDictionary validationDictionary, IEntityRepository<Post> repository)
{
_validationDictionary = validationDictionary;
_repository = repository;
}
From the controller, i pass an object that implements IValidationDictionary. And i am explicitly calling the second constructor to initialize the repository.
This is what the controller constructors look like (the first one creates an instance of the validation object):
public PostController()
{
_service = new PostService(new ModelStateWrapper(this.ModelState));
}
public PostController(IEntityService<Post> service)
{
_service = service;
}
Everything works if i don't pass my IValidationDictionary object reference, in which case the first controller constructor would be removed and the service object would only have one constructor which accepts the repository interface as the parameter.
I appreciate any help with this :) Thanks.
It looks like the circular reference had to do with the fact that the service layer was dependent on the Controller's ModelState and the Controller dependent on the Service layer.
I had to rewrite my validation layer to get this to work. Here is what i did.
Define generic validator interface like below:
public interface IValidator<TEntity>
{
ValidationState Validate(TEntity entity);
}
We want to be able to return an instance of ValidationState which, obviously, defines the state of validation.
public class ValidationState
{
private readonly ValidationErrorCollection _errors;
public ValidationErrorCollection Errors
{
get
{
return _errors;
}
}
public bool IsValid
{
get
{
return Errors.Count == 0;
}
}
public ValidationState()
{
_errors = new ValidationErrorCollection();
}
}
Notice that we have an strongly typed error collection which we need to define as well. The collection is going to consist of ValidationError objects containing the property name of the entity we're validating and the error message associated with it. This just follows the standard ModelState interface.
public class ValidationErrorCollection : Collection<ValidationError>
{
public void Add(string property, string message)
{
Add(new ValidationError(property, message));
}
}
And here is what the ValidationError looks like:
public class ValidationError
{
private string _property;
private string _message;
public string Property
{
get
{
return _property;
}
private set
{
_property = value;
}
}
public string Message
{
get
{
return _message;
}
private set
{
_message = value;
}
}
public ValidationError(string property, string message)
{
Property = property;
Message = message;
}
}
The rest of this is StructureMap magic. We need to create validation service layer which will locate validation objects and validate our entity. I'd like to define an interface for this, since i want anyone using validation service to be completely unaware of the StructureMap presence. Besides, i think sprinkling ObjectFactory.GetInstance() anywhere besides the bootstrapper logic a bad idea. Keeping it centralized is a good way to insure good maintainability. Anyway, i use the decorator pattern here:
public interface IValidationService
{
ValidationState Validate<TEntity>(TEntity entity);
}
And we finally implement it:
public class ValidationService : IValidationService
{
#region IValidationService Members
public IValidator<TEntity> GetValidatorFor<TEntity>(TEntity entity)
{
return ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IValidator<TEntity>>();
}
public ValidationState Validate<TEntity>(TEntity entity)
{
IValidator<TEntity> validator = GetValidatorFor(entity);
if (validator == null)
{
throw new Exception("Cannot locate validator");
}
return validator.Validate(entity);
}
#endregion
}
I'm going to be using validation service in my controller. We could move it to the service layer and have StructureMap use property injection to inject an instance of controller's ModelState to the service layer, but i don't want the service layer to be coupled with ModelState. What if we decide to use another validation technique? This is why i'd rather put it in the controller. Here is what my controller looks like:
public class PostController : Controller
{
private IEntityService<Post> _service = null;
private IValidationService _validationService = null;
public PostController(IEntityService<Post> service, IValidationService validationService)
{
_service = service;
_validationService = validationService;
}
}
Here i am injecting my service layer and validaton service instances using StructureMap. So, we need to register both in StructureMap registry:
ForRequestedType<IValidationService>()
.TheDefaultIsConcreteType<ValidationService>();
ForRequestedType<IValidator<Post>>()
.TheDefaultIsConcreteType<PostValidator>();
That's it. I don't show how i implement my PostValidator, but it's simply implementing IValidator interface and defining validation logic in the Validate() method. All that's left to do is call your validation service instance to retrieve the validator, call the validate method on your entity and write any errors to ModelState.
[AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)]
public ActionResult Create([Bind(Exclude = "PostId")] Post post)
{
ValidationState vst = _validationService.Validate<Post>(post);
if (!vst.IsValid)
{
foreach (ValidationError error in vst.Errors)
{
this.ModelState.AddModelError(error.Property, error.Message);
}
return View(post);
}
...
}
Hope i helped somebody out with this :)
I used a similar solution involving a generic implementor of IValidationDictionary uses a StringDictionary and then copied the errors from this back into the model state in the controller.
Interface for validationdictionary
public interface IValidationDictionary
{
bool IsValid{get;}
void AddError(string Key, string errorMessage);
StringDictionary errors { get; }
}
Implementation of validation dictionary with no reference to model state or anything else so structuremap can create it easily
public class ValidationDictionary : IValidationDictionary
{
private StringDictionary _errors = new StringDictionary();
#region IValidationDictionary Members
public void AddError(string key, string errorMessage)
{
_errors.Add(key, errorMessage);
}
public bool IsValid
{
get { return (_errors.Count == 0); }
}
public StringDictionary errors
{
get { return _errors; }
}
#endregion
}
Code in the controller to copy the errors from the dictionary into the model state. This would probably be best as an extension function of Controller.
protected void copyValidationDictionaryToModelState()
{
// this copies the errors into viewstate
foreach (DictionaryEntry error in _service.validationdictionary.errors)
{
ModelState.AddModelError((string)error.Key, (string)error.Value);
}
}
thus bootstrapping code is like this
public static void BootstrapStructureMap()
{
// Initialize the static ObjectFactory container
ObjectFactory.Initialize(x =>
{
x.For<IContactRepository>().Use<EntityContactManagerRepository>();
x.For<IValidationDictionary>().Use<ValidationDictionary>();
x.For<IContactManagerService>().Use<ContactManagerService>();
});
}
and code to create controllers is like this
public class IocControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory
{
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext requestContext, Type controllerType)
{
return (Controller)ObjectFactory.GetInstance(controllerType);
}
}
Just a quick query on this. It's helped me out quite a lot so thanks for putting the answer up, but I wondered which namespace TEntity exists in? I see Colletion(TEntity) needs System.Collections.ObjectModel. My file compiles without anything further but I see your TEntity reference highlighted in Blue which suggests it has a class type, mine is Black in Visual Studio. Hope you can help. I'm pretty keen to get this working.
Have you found any way to seperate validation into the service layer at all? My gut tells me that validating in the Controller is a bit smelly but I've looked high and low to find a way to pass validation error messages back to the controller without tightly coupling the service layer to the controller and can't find anything. :(
Again, thanks for the great post!
Lloyd

Validation in a Domain Driven Design

How do you deal with validation on complex aggregates in a domain driven design? Are you consolidating your business rules/validation logic?
I understand argument validation and I understand property validation which can be attached to the models themselves and do things like check that an email address or zipcode is valid or that a first name has a minimum and maximum length.
But what about complex validation that involves multiple models? Where do you typically place these rules & methods within your architecture? And what patterns if any do you use to implement them?
Instead of relying on IsValid(xx) calls all over your application, consider taking some advice from Greg Young:
Don't ever let your entities get into
an invalid state.
What this basically means is that you transition from thinking of entities as pure data containers and more about objects with behaviors.
Consider the example of a person's address:
person.Address = "123 my street";
person.City = "Houston";
person.State = "TX";
person.Zip = 12345;
Between any of those calls your entity is invalid (because you would have properties that don't agree with each other. Now consider this:
person.ChangeAddress(.......);
all of the calls relating to the behavior of changing an address are now an atomic unit. Your entity is never invalid here.
If you take this idea of modeling behaviors rather than state, then you can reach a model that doesn't allow invalid entities.
For a good discussion on this, check out this infoq interview: http://www.infoq.com/interviews/greg-young-ddd
I like Jimmy Bogard's solution to this problem. He has a post on his blog titled "Entity validation with visitors and extension methods" in which he presents a very elegant approach to entity validation that suggest the implementation of a separate class to store validation code.
public interface IValidator<T>
{
bool IsValid(T entity);
IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(T entity);
}
public class OrderPersistenceValidator : IValidator<Order>
{
public bool IsValid(Order entity)
{
return BrokenRules(entity).Count() == 0;
}
public IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(Order entity)
{
if (entity.Id < 0)
yield return "Id cannot be less than 0.";
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(entity.Customer))
yield return "Must include a customer.";
yield break;
}
}
I usualy use a specification class,
it provides a method (this is C# but you can translate it in any language) :
bool IsVerifiedBy(TEntity candidate)
This method performs a complete check of the candidate and its relations.
You can use arguments in the specification class to make it parametrized, like a check level...
You can also add a method to know why the candidate did not verify the specification :
IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(TEntity canditate)
You can simply decide to implement the first method like this :
bool IsVerifiedBy(TEntity candidate)
{
return BrokenRules(candidate).IsEmpty();
}
For broken rules, I usualy write an iterator :
IEnumerable<string> BrokenRules(TEntity candidate)
{
if (someComplexCondition)
yield return "Message describing cleary what is wrong...";
if (someOtherCondition)
yield return
string.Format("The amount should not be {0} when the state is {1}",
amount, state);
}
For localization, you should use resources, and why not pass a culture to the BrokenRules method.
I place this classes in the model namespace with names that suggest their use.
Multiple model validation should be going through your aggregate root. If you have to validate across aggregate roots, you probably have a design flaw.
The way I do validation for aggregates is to return a response interface that tells me if validation pass/fail and any messages about why it failed.
You can validate all the sub-models on the aggregate root so they remain consistent.
// Command Response class to return from public methods that change your model
public interface ICommandResponse
{
CommandResult Result { get; }
IEnumerable<string> Messages { get; }
}
// The result options
public enum CommandResult
{
Success = 0,
Fail = 1
}
// My default implementation
public class CommandResponse : ICommandResponse
{
public CommandResponse(CommandResult result)
{
Result = result;
}
public CommandResponse(CommandResult result, params string[] messages) : this(result)
{
Messages = messages;
}
public CommandResponse(CommandResult result, IEnumerable<string> messages) : this(result)
{
Messages = messages;
}
public CommandResult Result { get; private set; }
public IEnumerable<string> Messages { get; private set; }
}
// usage
public class SomeAggregateRoot
{
public string SomeProperty { get; private set; }
public ICommandResponse ChangeSomeProperty(string newProperty)
{
if(newProperty == null)
{
return new CommandResponse(CommandResult.Fail, "Some property cannot be changed to null");
}
SomeProperty = newProperty;
return new CommandResponse(CommandResult.Success);
}
}
This questions a bit old now but in case anyone is interested here's how I implement validation in my service classes.
I have a private Validate method in each of my service classes that takes an entity instance and action being performed, if validation fails a custom exception is thrown with the details of the broken rules.
Example DocumentService with built in validation
public class DocumentService : IDocumentService
{
private IRepository<Document> _documentRepository;
public DocumentService(IRepository<Document> documentRepository)
{
_documentRepository = documentRepository;
}
public void Create(Document document)
{
Validate(document, Action.Create);
document.CreatedDate = DateTime.Now;
_documentRepository.Create(document);
}
public void Update(Document document)
{
Validate(document, Action.Update);
_documentRepository.Update(document);
}
public void Delete(int id)
{
Validate(_documentRepository.GetById(id), Action.Delete);
_documentRepository.Delete(id);
}
public IList<Document> GetAll()
{
return _documentRepository
.GetAll()
.OrderByDescending(x => x.PublishDate)
.ToList();
}
public int GetAllCount()
{
return _documentRepository
.GetAll()
.Count();
}
public Document GetById(int id)
{
return _documentRepository.GetById(id);
}
// validation
private void Validate(Document document, Action action)
{
var brokenRules = new List<string>();
if (action == Action.Create || action == Action.Update)
{
if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(document.Title))
brokenRules.Add("Title is required");
if (document.PublishDate == null)
brokenRules.Add("Publish Date is required");
}
if (brokenRules.Any())
throw new EntityException(string.Join("\r\n", brokenRules));
}
private enum Action
{
Create,
Update,
Delete
}
}
I like this approach because it allows me to put all my core validation logic in one place which keeps things simple.

Resources