I'm not sure if this has been asked or not yet, but how much logic should you put in your UI classes?
When I started programming I used to put all my code behind events on the form which as everyone would know makes it an absolute pain in the butt to test and maintain. Overtime I have come to release how bad this practice is and have started breaking everything into classes.
Sometimes when refactoring I still have that feeling of "where should I put this stuff", but because most of the time the code I'm working on is in the UI layer, has no unit tests and will break in unimaginable places, I usually end up leaving it in the UI layer.
Are there any good rules about how much logic you put in your UI classes? What patterns should I be looking for so that I don't do this kind of thing in the future?
Just logic dealing with the UI.
Sometimes people try to put even that into the Business layer. For example, one might have in their BL:
if (totalAmount < 0)
color = "RED";
else
color = "BLACK";
And in the UI display totalAmount using color -- which is completely wrong. It should be:
if (totalAmount < 0)
isNegative = true;
else
isNegative = false;
And it should be completely up to the UI layer how totalAmount should be displayed when isNegative is true.
As little as possible...
The UI should only have logic related to presentation. My personal preference now is to have the UI/View
just raise events (with supporting data) to a PresenterClass stating that something has happened. Let the Presenter respond to the event.
have methods to render/display data to be presented
a minimal amount of client side validations to help the user get it right the first time... (preferably done in a declarative manner) screening off invalid inputs before it even reaches the presenter e.g. ensure that the text field value is within a-b range by setting the min and max properties.
http://martinfowler.com/eaaDev/uiArchs.html describes the evolution of UI design. An excerpt
When people talk about self-testing
code user-interfaces quickly raise
their head as a problem. Many people
find that testing GUIs to be somewhere
between tough and impossible. This is
largely because UIs are tightly
coupled into the overall UI
environment and difficult to tease
apart and test in pieces.
But there are occasions where this is
impossible, you miss important
interactions, there are threading
issues, and the tests are too slow to
run.
As a result there's been a steady
movement to design UIs in such a way
that minimizes the behavior in objects
that are awkward to test. Michael
Feathers crisply summed up this
approach in The Humble Dialog Box.
Gerard Meszaros generalized this
notion to idea of a Humble Object -
any object that is difficult to test
should have minimal behavior. That way
if we are unable to include it in our
test suites we minimize the chances of
an undetected failure.
The pattern you are looking for may be Model-view-controller, which basically separates the DB(model) from the GUI(view) and the logic(controller). Here's Jeff Atwood's take on this. I believe one should not be fanatical about any framework, language or pattern - While heavy numerical calculations probably should not sit in the GUI, it is fine to do some basic input validation and output formatting there.
I suggest UI shouldn't include any sort of business logic. Not even the validations. They all should be at business logic level. In this way you make your BLL independent of UI. You can easily convert you windows app to web app or web services and vice versa. You may use object frameworks like Csla to achieve this.
Input validations attached to control.
Like emails,age,date validators with text boxes
James is correct. As a rule of thumb, your business logic should not make any assumption regarding presentation.
What if you plan on displaying your results on various media? One of them could be a black and white printer. "RED" would not cut it.
When I create a model or even a controller, I try to convince myself that the user interface will be a bubble bath. Believe me, that dramatically reduces the amount of HTML in my code ;)
Always put the minimum amount of logic possible in whatever layer you are working.
By that I mean, if you are adding code to the UI layer, add the least amount of logic necessary for that layer to perform it's UI (only) operations.
Not only does doing that result in a good separation of layers...it also saves you from code bloat.
I have already written a 'compatible' answer to this question here. The rule is (according to me) that there should not be any logic in the UI except the UI logic and calls for standard procedures that will manage generic/specific cases.
In our situation, we came to a point where form's code is automatically generated out of the list of controls available on a form. Depending on the kind of control (bound text, bound boolean, bound number, bound combobox, unbound label, ...), we automatically generate a set of event procedures (such as beforeUpdate and afterUpdate for text controls, onClick for labels, etc) that launch generic code located out of the form.
This code can then either do generic things (test if the field value can be updated in the beforeUpdate event, order the recordset ascending/descending in the onClick event, etc) or specific treatments based on the form's and/or the control's name (making for example some work in a afterUpdate event, such as calculating the value of a totalAmount control out of the unitPrice and quantity values).
Our system is now fully automated, and form's production relies on two tables: Tbl_Form for a list of forms available in the app, and Tbl_Control for a list of controls available in our forms
Following the referenced answer and other posts in SO, some users have asked me to develop on my ideas. As the subject is quite complex, I finally decided to open a blog to talk about this UI logic. I have already started talking about UI interface, but it might take a few days (.. weeks!) until I can specifically reach the subject you're interested in.
Related
I have a view that I may use in any number of applications. It's a special viewer for a kind of data type. It contains a special reader for files that pertain to this data type and it can write them. What are the pros and cons of doing it this way? In a recent project, the MVVM proponents argued the view must be "dumb". This makes no sense because how can it be dumb if it is a narrowly specialized viewer? Is it possible that MVVM comes from the web world where viewers are simple? Anyway, the MVVM proponents also believed any data that goes into a view must be conditioned first e.g. converted to HTML, if the view is a webview. Seems like overkill. Why do that?
The concept of MVVM is to separate business logic (model) from view. In your case the reader writer should be in the model code. The Pro is that if you at any point want to make changes to the view side you can do so without changing or moving around code that does the actual data exchange (read write).
It also means that you can write tests against your model and if you change your view the model and test code will be left untouched.
Con with MVVM is that it adds some extra layer of code, it can add some development time (at least when one is new to MVVM) and in the beginning one may feel a bit locked by follow a pattern.
In the end I usually find the Pros to be bigger. One get a good and well thought through Design, separation of concerns for the codebase, easy to test different parts and the day you get a request for modifying or extending the control it will be much easier.
I am trying to learn how to use BDD for our development process and I sometimes end-up writing things that implies a UI design, so for brand new development or new features, the UI does not always exists.
For example, if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
That gets me confused to know at what point in the process do we come up with a UI design ?
Keep in mind, I only have read articles about BDD and I think it would help our team a lot but still very new at this! Thx!
If you write your scenarios with a focus on the capabilities of the system, you'll be able to refactor the underlying steps within those scenarios more easily. It keeps them flexible. So I'd ask - what does clicking the column get for you? Are you selecting something? What are you going to do with the selection? Are you searching for something and sorting by a value?
I like to see scenarios which say things like:
When I look for the entry
When I go to the diary for January
When I look at the newest entries
When I look at the same T-shirt in black
These could all involve clicking on a column header, but the implementation detail doesn't matter. It's the capability of the system.
Beneath these high-level scenarios and steps I like to create a screen or page with the smaller steps like clicking buttons in it. This makes it easy to refactor.
I wrote this in a DSL rather than English, but it works with the same idea - you can't tell from the steps whether it's a GUI or a web page, and some of the steps involve multiple UI actions:
http://code.google.com/p/wipflash/source/browse/Example.PetShop.Scenarios/PetRegistrationAndPurchase.cs
Hope you find it interesting and maybe it helps. Good luck!
I guess you can write around that by saying "when I sort the information by X, then..." But then you would have to adjust your scenario to remove any mention of the data being displayed in a grid format, which could lead to some rather obtuse writing.
I think it's a good idea to start with UI design as soon as you possibly can. In the case you mentioned above, I think it would be perfectly valid to augment the user story with sketch of the relevant UI as you would imagine it, and then refine it as you go along. A pencil sketch on a piece of paper should be fine. Or you could use a tablet and SketchBook Pro if you want something all digital.
My point is that I don't see a real reason for the UI design to be left out of user stories. You probably already know that you're going to build a Windows, WPF, or Web application. And it's safe to assume that when you want to display tabular data, you'll be using a grid. Keeping these assumptions out of the requirements obfuscates them without adding any real value.
User stories benefit from the fact, that you describe concrete interactions and once you know concrete data and behaviour of the system for it, you might as well add more information about the way you interact. This allows you to use some tools like Cucumber, which with Selenium enables you to translate a story to a test. You might go even further and e.g. for web apps capture all pages you start concrete story at and collect all interactions with that page resulting in some sort of information architecture you might use for documentation or prototyping and later UI testing.
On the other hand, this makes your stories somewhat brittle when it comes to UI changes. I think the agile way of thinking about this is same as when it comes to design changes - do not design for the future, do the simplest possible thing, in the future you might need to change it anyway.
If you stripped your user stories of all concrete things (even inputs) you will end up with use cases(at least in their simplest format, depends on how you write your stories). Use cases are in this respect not brittle at all, they specify only goals. This makes them resistant to change, but its harder to transfer information automatically using tools.
As for the process, RUP/UP derives UI from use cases, but I think agile is in its nature incremental (I will not say iterative, this would exclude agile methods like FDD and Kanban). This means, as you implement new story, you add to your UI what is necessary. This only makes adding UI specifics in stories more reasonable. The problem is, that this is not a very good way to create UI or more generally UX(user experience). This is exactly what one might call a weakpoint of agile. The Agile manifesto concentrates on functional software, but that is it. There are as far as I know no agile techniques for designing UI or UX.
I think you just need to step back a bit.
BAD: When I click the column header, the rows get sorted by the column I clicked.
GOOD: Then I sort the rows by name, or sometimes by ZIP code if the name is very common, like "Smith".
A user story / workflow is a sequence of what the user wants to achieve, not a sequence of actions how he achieves that. You are collecting the What's so you can determine the best How's for all users and use cases.
Looking at a singular aspect of your post:
if I say this in a scenario "When a column header is clicked" it implies that this feature is based on some sort of table or grid, but at this point we are still just writing user-stories so there is no UI yet.
If this came from a user, not from you, it would show a hidden expectation that there actually is a table or grid with column headers. Even coming from you it's not entirely without value, as you might be a user, too. It might be short-sighted, thinking of a grid just because it comes from an SQL query, or it might be spot-on because it's the presentation you expect the data in. A creative UI isnÄt a bad thing as such, but ignoring user expectations is.
I am currently refactoring code that coordinates multiple hardware components for data acquisition, and feeling a bit like I'm recreating the wheel. In particular, an MVC-like pattern seems to be emerging. Except, this has nothing to do with a GUI and I'm worried that I'm forcing this particular pattern where another might be more appropriate. Here's my scenario:
Individual hardware "component" classes obey interface contracts for each hardware type. Previously, component instances were orchestrated by a single monolithic InstrumentController class, which relied heavily on configuration + branching logic for executing a specific acquisition sequence. After an iteration, I have a separate controller for each component, with these controllers all managed by a small InstrumentControllerBase (or its derivatives). The composite system will receive "input" either programmatically or via inter-hardware component triggering - in either case these interactions are routed to, and handled by, the appropriate controller.
So, I have something that feels MVC-esque, but I don't know if that's because I'm forcing the point. With little direct MVC experience in application development, it's hard to know if I'm just trying to make my scenario fit MVC, where another pattern might be a good alternative or complimentary. My problem is, search results and wiki documentation of these family of patterns seems to immediately drop me into GUI-specific discussions.
I understand "M means Model data and the V means View" - but what do you call the superset pattern? Component-Commander-Controller?
Whence can I exhume examples exemplary?
IMO a "view" is not necessarily a GUI component. The pattern is easiest to demonstrate with GUIs but that does not limit its usability to GUIs. If it works for you, don't worry about the name :-) And of course, feel free to tailor it according to your needs.
Update: Of more generic kins of MVC, the only example which surfaced in my mind (after a day's background processing) is PAC.
I'm not generally a GUI programmer but as luck has it, I'm stuck building a GUI for a project. The language is java although my question is general.
My question is this:
I have a GUI with many enabled/disabled options, check boxes.
The relationship between what options are currently selected and what option are allowed to be selected is rather complex. It can't be modeled as a simple decision tree. That is options selected farther down the decision tree can impose restrictions on options further up the tree and the user should not be required to "work his way down" from top level options.
I've implemented this in a very poor way, it works but there are tons of places that roughly look like:
if (checkboxA.isEnabled() && checkboxB.isSelected())
{
//enable/disable a bunch of checkboxs
//select/unselect a bunch of checkboxs
}
This is far from ideal, the initial set of options specified was very simple, but as most projects seem to work out, additional options where added and the definition of what configuration of options allowed continually grew to the point that the code, while functional, is a mess and time didn't allow for fixing it properly till now.
I fully expect more options/changes in the next phase of the project and fully expect the change requests to be a fluid process. I want to rebuild this code to be more maintainable and most importantly, easy to change.
I could model the options in a many dimensional array, but i cringe at the ease of making changes and the nondescript nature of the array indexes.
Is there a data structure that the GUI programmers out there would recommend for dealing with a situation like this? I assume this is a problem thats been solved elegantly before.
Thank you for your responses.
The important savings of code and sanity you're looking for here are declarative approach and DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself).
[Example for the following: let's say it's illegal to enable all 3 of checkboxes A, B and C together.]
Bryan Batchelder gave the first step of tidying it up: write a single rule for validity of each checkbox:
if(B.isSelected() && C.isSelected()) {
A.forceOff(); // making methods up - disable & unselected
} else {
A.enable();
}
// similar rules for B and C...
// similar code for other relationships...
and re-evaluate it anytime anything changes. This is better than scattering changes to A's state among many places (when B changes, when C changes).
But we still have duplication: the single conceptual rule for which combinations of A,B,C are legal was broken down into 3 rules for when you can allow free changes of A, B, and C. Ideally you'd write only this:
bool validate() {
if(A.isSelected() && B.isSelected() && C.isSelected()) {
return false;
}
// other relationships...
}
and have all checkbox enabling / forcing deduced from that automatically!
Can you do that from a single validate() rule? I think you can! You simulate possible changes - would validate() return true if A is on? off? If both are possible, leave A enabled; if only one state of A is possible, disable it and force its value; if none are possible - the current situation itself is illegal. Repeat the above simulation for A = other checkboxes...
Something inside me is itching to require here a simulation over all possible combinations of changes. Think of situations like "A should not disable B yet, because while illegal currently with C on, enabling B would force C off, and with that B is legal"... The problem is that down that road lies complete madness and unpredictable UI behaviour. I believe simulating only changes of one widget at a time relative to current state is the Right Thing to do, but I'm too lazy to prove it now. So take this approach with a grain of scepticism.
I should also say that all this sounds at best confusing for the user! Sevaral random ideas that might(?) lead you to more usable GUI designs (or at least mitigate the pain):
Use GUI structure where possible!
Group widgets that depend on a common condition.
Use radio buttons over checkboxes and dropdown selections where possible.
Radio buttons can be disabled individually, which makes for better feedback.
Use radio buttons to flatten combinations: instead of checkboxes "A" and "B" that can't be on at once, offer "A"/"B"/"none" radio buttons.
List compatibility constraints in GUI / tooltips!
Auto-generate tooltips for disabled widgets, explaining which rule forced them?
This one is actually easy to do.
Consider allowing contradictions but listing the violated rules in a status area, requiring the user to resolve before he can press OK.
Implement undo (& redo?), so that causing widgets to be disabled is non-destructive?
Remember the user-assigned state of checkboxes when you disable them, restore when they become enabled? [But beware of changing things without the user noticing!]
I've had to work on similar GUIs and ran into the same problem. I never did find a good data structure so I'll be watching other answers to this question with interest. It gets especially tricky when you are dealing with several different types of controls (combo boxes, list views, checkboxes, panels, etc.). What I did find helpful is to use descriptive names for your controls so that it's very clear when your looking at the code what each control does or is for. Also, organization of the code so that controls that affect each other are grouped together. When making udpates, don't just tack on some code at the bottom of the function that affects something else that's dealt with earlier in the function. Take the time to put the new code in the right spot.
Typically for really complex logic issues like this I would go with an inference based rules engine and simply state my rules and let it sort it out.
This is typically much better than trying to 1. code the maze of if then logic you have; and 2. modifying that maze later when business rules change.
One to check out for java is: JBoss Drools
I would think of it similarly to how validation rules typically work.
Create a rule (method/function/code block/lambda/whatever) that describes what criteria must be satisfied for a particular control to be enabled/disabled. Then when any change is made, you execute each method so that each control can respond to the changed state.
I agree, in part, with Bryan Batchelder's suggestion. My initial response was going to be something a long the lines of a rule system which is triggered every time a checkbox is altered.
Firstly, when a check box is checked, it validates (and allows or disallows the check) based on its own set of conditions. If allowed, it to propagate a change event.
Secondly, as a result of the event, every other checkbox now has to re-validate itself based on its own rules, considering that the global state has now changed.
On the assumption that each checkbox is going to execute an action based on the change in state (stay the same, toggle my checked status, toggle my enabled status), I think it'd be plausible to write an operation for each checkbox (how you associate them is up to you) which either has these values hardcoded or, and what I'd probably do, have them read in from an XML file.
To clear this up, what I ended up doing was a combination of provided options.
For my application the available open source rule engines were simply massive over kill and not worth the bloat given this application is doing real time signal processing. I did like the general idea.
I also didn't like the idea of having validation code in various places, I wanted a single location to make changes.
So what I did was build a simple rule/validation system.
The input is an array of strings, for me this is hard coded but you could read this from file if you wish.
Each string defines a valid configuration for all the check boxes.
On program launch I build a list of check box configurations, 1 per allowed configuration, that stores the selected state and enabled state for each checkbox. This way each change made to the UI just requires a look up of the proper configuration.
The configuration is calculated by comparing the current UI configuration to other allowed UI configurations to figure out which options should be allowed. The code is very much akin to calculating if a move is allowed in a board game.
I've read a statement somewhere that generating UI automatically from DB layout (or business objects, or whatever other business layer) is a bad idea. I can also imagine a few good challenges that one would have to face in order to make something like this.
However I have not seen (nor could find) any examples of people attempting it. Thus I'm wondering - is it really that bad? It's definately not easy, but can it be done with any measure success? What are the major obstacles? It would be great to see some examples of successes and failures.
To clarify - with "generating UI automatically" I mean that the all forms with all their controls are generated completely automatically (at runtime or compile time), based perhaps on some hints in metadata on how the data should be represented. This is in contrast to designing forms by hand (as most people do).
Added: Found this somewhat related question
Added 2: OK, it seems that one way this can get pretty fair results is if enough presentation-related metadata is available. For this approach, how much would be "enough", and would it be any less work than designing the form manually? Does it also provide greater flexibility for future changes?
We had a project which would generate the database tables/stored proc as well as the UI from business classes. It was done in .NET and we used a lot of Custom Attributes on the classes and properties to make it behave how we wanted it to. It worked great though and if you manage to follow your design you can create customizations of your software really easily. We also did have a way of putting in "custom" user controls for some very exceptional cases.
All in all it worked out well for us. Unfortunately it is a sold banking product and there is no available source.
it's ok for something tiny where all you need is a utilitarian method to get the data in.
for anything resembling a real application though, it's a terrible idea. what makes for a good UI is the humanisation factor, the bits you tweak to ensure that this machine reacts well to a person's touch.
you just can't get that when your interface is generated mechanically.... well maybe with something approaching AI. :)
edit - to clarify: UI generated from code/db is fine as a starting point, it's just a rubbish end point.
hey this is not difficult to achieve at all and its not a bad idea at all. it all depends on your project needs. a lot of software products (mind you not projects but products) depend upon this model - so they dont have to rewrite their code / ui logic for different client needs. clients can customize their ui the way they want to using a designer form in the admin system
i have used xml for preserving meta data for this sort of stuff. some of the attributes which i saved for every field were:
friendlyname (label caption)
haspredefinedvalues (yes for drop
down list / multi check box list)
multiselect (if yes then check box
list, if no then drop down list)
datatype
maxlength
required
minvalue
maxvalue
regularexpression
enabled (to show or not to show)
sortkey (order on the web form)
regarding positioning - i did not care much and simply generate table tr td tags 1 below the other - however if you want to implement this as well, you can have 1 more attribute called CssClass where you can define ui specific properties (look and feel, positioning, etc) here
UPDATE: also note a lot of ecommerce products follow this kind of dynamic ui when you want to enter product information - as their clients can be selling everything under the sun from furniture to sex toys ;-) so instead of rewriting their code for every different industry they simply let their clients enter meta data for product attributes via an admin form :-)
i would also recommend you to look at Entity-attribute-value model - it has its own pros and cons but i feel it can be used quite well with your requirements.
In my Opinion there some things you should think about:
Does the customer need a function to customize his UI?
Are there a lot of different attributes or elements?
Is the effort of creating such an "rendering engine" worth it?
Okay, i think that its pretty obvious why you should think about these. It really depends on your project if that kind of model makes sense...
If you want to create some a lot of forms that can be customized at runtime then this model could be pretty uselful. Also, if you need to do a lot of smaller tools and you use this as some kind of "engine" then this effort could be worth it because you can save a lot of time.
With that kind of "rendering engine" you could automatically add error reportings, check the values or add other things that are always build up with the same pattern. But if you have too many of this things, elements or attributes then the performance can go down rapidly.
Another things that becomes interesting in bigger projects is, that changes that have to occur in each form just have to be made in the engine, not in each form. This could save A LOT of time if there is a bug in the finished application.
In our company we use a similar model for an interface generator between cash-software (right now i cant remember the right word for it...) and our application, just that it doesnt create an UI, but an output file for one of the applications.
We use XML to define the structure and how the values need to be converted and so on..
I would say that in most cases the data is not suitable for UI generation. That's why you almost always put a a layer of logic in between to interpret the DB information to the user. Another thing is that when you generate the UI from DB you will end up displaying the inner workings of the system, something that you normally don't want to do.
But it depends on where the DB came from. If it was created to exactly reflect what the users goals of the system is. If the users mental model of what the application should help them with is stored in the DB. Then it might just work. But then you have to start at the users end. If not I suggest you don't go that way.
Can you look on your problem from application architecture perspective? I see you as another database terrorist – trying to solve all by writing stored procedures. Why having UI at all? Try do it in DB script. In effect of such approach – on what composite system you will end up? When system serves different businesses – try modularization, selectively discovered components, restrict sharing references. UI shall be replaceable, independent from business layer. When storing so much data in DB – there is hard dependency of UI – system becomes monolith. How you implement MVVM pattern in scenario when UI is generated? Designers like Blend are containing lots of features, which cannot be replaced by most futuristic UI generator – unless – your development platform is Notepad only.
There is a hybrid approach where forms and all are described in a database to ensure consistency server side, which is then compiled to ensure efficiency client side on deploy.
A real-life example is the enterprise software MS Dynamics AX.
It has a 'Data' database and a 'Model' database.
The 'Model' stores forms, classes, jobs and every artefact the application needs to run.
Deploying the new software structure used to be to dump the model database and initiate a CIL compile (CIL for common intermediate language, something used by Microsoft in .net)
This way is suitable for enterprise-wide software and can handle large customizations. But keep in mind that this approach sets a framework that should be well understood by whoever gonna maintain and customize the application later.
I did this (in PHP / MySQL) to automatically generate sections of a CMS that I was building for a client. It worked OK my main problem was that the code that generates the forms became very opaque and difficult to understand therefore difficult to reuse and modify so I did not reuse it.
Note that the tables followed strict conventions such as naming, etc. which made it possible for the UI to expect particular columns and infer information about the naming of the columns and tables. There is a need for meta information to help the UI display the data.
Generally it can work however the thing is if your UI just mirrors the database then maybe there is lots of room to improve. A good UI should do much more than mirror a database, it should be built around human interaction patterns and preferences, not around the database structure.
So basically if you want to be cheap and do a quick-and-dirty interface which mirrors your DB then go for it. The main challenge would be to find good quality code that can do this or write it yourself.
From my perspective, it was always a problem to change edit forms when a very simple change was needed in a table structure.
I always had the feeling we have to spend too much time on rewriting the CRUD forms instead of developing the useful stuff, like processing / reporting / analyzing data, giving alerts for decisions etc...
For this reason, I made long time ago a code generator. So, it become easier to re-generate the forms with a simple restriction: to keep the CSS classes names. Simply like this!
UI was always based on a very "standard" code, controlled by a custom CSS.
Whenever I needed to change database structure, so update an edit form, I had to re-generate the code and redeploy.
One disadvantage I noticed was about the changes (customizations, improvements etc.) done on the previous generated code, which are lost when you re-generate it.
But anyway, the advantage of having a lot of work done by the code-generator was great!
I initially did it for the 2000s Microsoft ASP (Active Server Pages) & Microsoft SQL Server... so, when that technology was replaced by .NET, my code-generator become obsoleted.
I made something similar for PHP but I never finished it...
Anyway, from small experiments I found that generating code ON THE FLY can be way more helpful (and this approach does not exclude the SAVED generated code): no worries about changing database etc.
So, the next step was to create something that I am very proud to show here, and I think it is one nice resolution for the issue raised in this thread.
I would start with applicable use cases: https://data-seed.tech/usecases.php.
I worked to add details on how to use, but if something is still missing please let me know here!
You can change database structure, and with no line of code you can start edit data, and more like this, you have available an API for CRUD operations.
I am still a fan of the "code-generator" approach, and I think it is just a flavor of using XML/XSLT that I used for DATA-SEED. I plan to add code-generator functionalities.