Given the following example aggregate:
public class Order
{
private readonly IList<OrderLine> _orderLines;
public IEnumerable<OrderLine> Lines { get { return _orderLines; } }
public Order()
{
_orderLines = new List<OrderLine>();
}
public void AddOrderLine(string sku, int qty)
{
_orderLines.Add(new OrderLine(sku, qty));
}
public void CancelOrderLine(string sku)
{
OrderLine line = _orderLines.FirstOrDefault(l => l.Sku == sku);
if (line == null)
return;
line.Cancel();
}
}
public class OrderLine
{
public string Sku { get; private set; }
public int Qty { get; private set; }
public OrderLine(string sku, int qty)
{
Sku = sku;
Qty = qty;
}
public void Cancel()
{
// do some cancellation stuff
}
}
What is to prevent someone from going around the aggregate root and modifying the OrderLine directly? For example:
foreach(OrderLine line in currentOrder.Lines)
{
line.Cancel();
}
Is there anyway to have a truly encapsulated aggregate root? Would the only solution be to create a set of parallel order lines value objects that get exposed instead?
Thanks for any insight.
Can't you start with making the Cancel method internal so it is only visible inside your Order assembly?
Off course other classes in this assembly can then still access the cancel method.
Maybe another way is to expose the collection of OrderLines as a collection of IOrderLine interfaces and hide the Cancel method that way.
Why do you expose Lines? Expose some snapshot (DTO) containing information about OrderLines that you need outside but not OrderLines themselves. It's known solution. And with CQRS you may not need to expose it at all.
Related
I am learning DDD and trying to model articles, its variants and parameters.
Article can be on it's own without variants
Variant must be child of an article
both article and variant can have some parameters (colors, brands, sizes...), physical quantities (width, length, some article-specific like inner length)
If you set some parameter on an article, it can be "synchronized" to it's children variants
you can override this in a variant by setting that parameter as "unlinked", then this variant would have different parameter value than article
some parameters can be set multiple times (color: red, blue), but some only once (brand)
those parameters are dynamically create, it's not a Color or Brand property but key-value selected from preconfigured values
I think my main aggregate roots will be Article and Variant.
My current code looks like this:
internal class Article : AggregateRoot<ArticleId>
{
private readonly ISet<VariantId> _variants = new HashSet<VariantId>();
private readonly ISet<AssignedParameter> _parameters = new HashSet<AssignedParameter>();
private readonly ISet<AssignedPhysicalQuantity> _physicalQuantities = new HashSet<AssignedPhysicalQuantity>();
public string Name { get; private set; }
public string Catalog { get; private set; }
public IReadOnlySet<VariantId> Variants => _variants.AsReadOnly();
public IReadOnlySet<AssignedParameter> Parameters => _parameters.AsReadOnly();
public IReadOnlySet<AssignedPhysicalQuantity> PhysicalQuantities => _physicalQuantities.AsReadOnly();
private Article(ArticleId id, string name, string catalog)
: base(id)
{
Name = name;
Catalog = catalog;
}
public static Article Register(ArticleId id, string name, string catalog)
{
var article = new Article(id, name, catalog);
article.AddEvent(new ArticleRegistered(article.Id, article.Name, article.Catalog));
return article;
}
public void AssignParameter(Parameter parameter, ParameterValue parameterValue, bool syncToVariants)
{
if (!parameter.CanBeAssignedMultipleTimes && _parameters.Any(p => p.ParameterId == parameter.Id))
{
throw new ParameterCanBeAssignedOnlyOnceException($"Parameter {parameter.Id} can by assigned only once.");
}
var assignedParameter = new AssignedParameter(parameter.Id, parameterValue.Id, syncToVariants);
if (!_parameters.Add(assignedParameter))
{
throw new ParameterIsAlreadyAssignedException($"Parameter {parameter.Id} with value {parameterValue.Id} is already assigned.");
}
AddEvent(new ArticleParameterAssigned(Id, assignedParameter.ParameterId, assignedParameter.ParameterValueId));
}
public void UnassignParameter(Parameter parameter, ParameterValue parameterValue)
{
var assignedParameter = _parameters.FirstOrDefault(p => p.ParameterId == parameter.Id && p.ParameterValueId == parameterValue.Id);
if (assignedParameter is null)
{
throw new ParameterIsNotAssignedException($"Parameter {parameter.Id} is not assigned.");
}
_parameters.Remove(assignedParameter);
AddEvent(new ArticleParameterUnassigned(Id, assignedParameter.ParameterId, assignedParameter.ParameterValueId));
}
// physical quantity assign / unassign are similar to parameters
}
internal class Variant : AggregateRoot<VariantId>
{
private readonly ISet<AssignedParameter> _parameters = new HashSet<AssignedParameter>();
private readonly ISet<AssignedPhysicalQuantity> _physicalQuantities = new HashSet<AssignedPhysicalQuantity>();
public string Name { get; private set; }
public string Catalog { get; private set; }
public EanCode Ean { get; private set; }
public decimal Weight { get; private set; }
public IReadOnlySet<AssignedParameter> Parameters => _parameters.AsReadOnly();
public IReadOnlySet<AssignedPhysicalQuantity> PhysicalQuantities => _physicalQuantities.AsReadOnly();
internal Variant(VariantId id, string name, string catalog, EanCode ean, decimal weight)
: base(id)
{
Name = name;
Catalog = catalog;
Ean = ean;
Weight = weight;
}
// parameter and physical quantity assignment methods
}
Parameters:
internal class Parameter : AggregateRoot<ParameterId>
{
private readonly ISet<ParameterValue> _values = new HashSet<ParameterValue>();
public string Code { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public bool CanBeAssignedMultipleTimes { get; private set; }
public IReadOnlySet<ParameterValue> Values => _values.AsReadOnly();
public Parameter(ParameterId id, string code, string name, bool canBeAssignedMultipleTimes)
: base(id)
{
Code = code;
Name = name;
CanBeAssignedMultipleTimes = canBeAssignedMultipleTimes;
}
}
internal class ParameterValue : Entity<ParameterValueId>
{
public string Code { get; private set; }
public string Name { get; private set; }
public Parameter Parameter { get; private init; } = null!;
public ParameterValue(ParameterValueId id, string code, string name)
: base(id)
{
Code = code;
Name = name;
}
}
Value objects:
// for Article, variant doesn't have SyncToVariants property and has some other
internal class AssignedParameter : ValueObject
{
public ParameterId ParameterId { get; private init; }
public ParameterValueId ParameterValueId { get; private init; }
public bool SyncToVariants { get; private init; }
public AssignedParameter(ParameterId parameterId, ParameterValueId parameterValueId, bool syncToVariants)
{
ParameterId = parameterId;
ParameterValueId = parameterValueId;
SyncToVariants = syncToVariants;
}
protected override IEnumerable<object> GetEqualityComponents()
{
yield return ParameterId;
yield return ParameterValueId;
}
}
internal class AssignedPhysicalQuantity : ValueObject { ... }
My questions:
What would be the best way to notify variants of the parameter change? I can think of two ways using events.
First would be using ArticleParameterChanged(ArticleId, parameter.Id, parameterValue.Id). I would handle this event and changed all variants at once in the handler - I don't think this is the way, but I wouldn't need to hold variants collection in article.
Second would be to loop through variant IDs and create ArticleVariantParameterChanged(ArticleId, VariantId, parameterId, parameterValueId) event. This seems more correct to me?
if (syncToVariants)
{
foreach (var variantId in _variants)
{
AddEvent(new ArticleVariantParameterChanged(Id, variantId, parameter.Id, parameterValue.Id);
}
}
How do I add new variant to article? The easiest way would be to create new variant and update the article in one transaction.
// Article method
public Variant RegisterVariant(VariantId variantId, ...)
{
var variant = new Variant(variantId, ...);
_variants.Add(variantId);
return variant;
}
// command handler? or domain service?
var article = await _articleRepo.GetAsync(articleId);
var variant = article.RegisterVariant(variantId, ...);
await _variantRepo.AddAsync(variant);
await _articleRepo.UpdateAsync(article);
Or using events?
// Article method
public Variant RegisterVariant(VariantId variantId, ...)
{
var variant = Variant.Register(variantId, this.Id, ...);
return variant;
}
// Variant static method
public Variant Register(VariantId variantId, ArticleId articleId, ...)
{
var variant = new Variant(variantId, articleId, ...);
variant.AddEvent(new VariantRegistered(variantId, articleId));
return variant;
}
// command handler
var variant = article.RegisterVariant(...);
await _variantRepo.AddAsync(variant);
// VariantRegisteredHandler
article.AddVariant(variantId);
However here it seems kind of confusing to me, article.RegisterVariant and article.AddVariant... Maybe it's just wrong naming?
Also here can occur condition race between adding new variant and assigning a new parameter, when someone adds new parameter before the VariantRegistered event was handled, so it wouldn't sync that parameter.
So I'm thinking, is it even good idea to store those shared parameters in each variant? Maybe it would be enough to just have variant specific parameters there and merge everything in the read model? However this would be harder to prevent duplications - if the article already has a parameter "color - red", assigning "color - red" to variant would need to check the article parameters too and there can be another race condition.
I read that entities without any domain business logic could be treated as CRUD, that means they wouldn't even inherit AggregateRoot and each of them would have own repository, right?
Let's say someone really wants to delete some parameter value, for example blue color. This wouldn't (hopefully) happen in my app, but I'm still curious how this would be handled. He confirms he really wants to delete it and I need to go through all articles and unassign it from them. How?
My idea would be either to have ParameterValueDeleted event and ParameterValueDeletedHandler would query for all articles and variants and unassign it one by one, this handler would take really long time to execute.
Or ParameterValueDeletedHandler would query for all IDs, create some event for them and that handler would unassign it later. However in the latter case I don't know how that event would be named to make sense. UnassignArticleParameter seems more like command than event and ArticleParameterUnassigned is something coming from article. Also I read that commands indicate something that can be rejected, so I would say command doesn't fit here.
Also I see a problem when someone deletes that parameter and someone else queries for an article which doesn't have it unassigned yet - database join would fail because it would join to non existent parameter (considering single database for read and write model).
If I wanted to have mandatory parameters, where would be the best place to validate that all of them are set? Move the article registration logic to ArticleFactory and check it there? And for variants maybe ArticleService or VariantFactory? This seems kinda inconsistent to me, but maybe it's right?
var article = await _articleRepo.GetAsync(articleId);
_articleService.RegisterVariant(article, /* variant creation data */);
_variantFactory.Register(article, /* variant creation data */);
I think this should be all, I hope I explained everything well.
I would appreciate any help with this!
Little introduction: we have a complex entity and overgrown business logic related to it. With various fields that we can change and fields that updates from external project management software (PMS) like MS Project and some others.
The problem is that it's hard to centralize business logic for changing every fields cause that changes can offend other fields some fields are calculated but should be calculated only in several business scenarios. And different synchronization processes uses different business logic that depends on external data of specific PMS.
At this moment we have such ways to change the fields in our solution:
Constructor with parameters and private parameterless constructor
public class SomeEntity
{
public string SomeField;
private SomeEntity ()
{
}
public SomeEntity (string someField)
{
SomeField = someField;
}
}
Private set with public method to change field value
public class SomeEntity
{
public string SomeField {get; private set;}
public void SetSomeField(string newValue)
{
// there may be some checks
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(newValue))
{
throw new Exception();
}
SomeField = newValue;
}
}
Event methods that perform operations and set some fields
public class SomeEntity
{
public string SomeField { get; private set; }
public string SomePublishedField { get; private set; }
public void PublishEntity(string publishValue)
{
SomeField = publishValue;
SomePublishedField = $"{publishValue} {DateTime.Now()}";
}
}
Public setters
public class SomeEntity
{
public string SomeField { get; set; }
}
Services that implements business logic:
public class SomeService : ISomeService
{
private DbContext _dbContext;
private ISomeApprovalsService _approvalsService;
public async Task UpdateFromMspAsync (MspSomeEntity mspEntity,
CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
{
var entity = await _dbContext.SomeEntities
.Include (e => e.Process)
.SingleAsync (e => e.MspId == mspEntity.Id, cancellationToken);
switch mspEntity.Status:
case MspStatusEnum.Cancelled:
entity.Process.State = ProcessStateEnum.Rejected;
entity.Status = EntityStatusEnum.Stopped;
break;
case MspStatusEnum.Accepted:
_approvalsService.SendApprovals (entity.Process);
entity.Status = EntityStatusEnum.Finished;
break;
await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync (cancellationToken);
}
}
State machine inside entity
public class SomeEntity
{
private StateMachine<TriggerEnum, StateEnum> _stateMachine;
public SomeEntity()
{
ConfigureStateMachine();
}
public string SomeField1 { get; set; }
public string SomeField2 { get; set; }
public string SomeField3 { get; set; }
private void ConfigureStateMachine()
{
_statusStateMachine.Configure(StateEnum.Processing)
.OnEntry(s=>SomeField1 = null)
.Permit(TriggerEnum.Approve, StateEnum.Approved);
_statusStateMachine.Configure(StateEnum.Approved)
.OnEntry(s=> SomeField1 = SomeField2 + SomeField3)
.Permit(TriggerEnum.Publish, StateEnum.Finished)
.Permit(TriggerEnum.Cancel, StateEnum.Canceled);
// etc
}
public void Trigger (TriggerEnum trigger) => _statusStateMachine.Fire(trigger);
}
State machine as service to prevent buisness logic leaks inside of entity.
var machine = _services.GetService<IStateMachine<SomeEntity, TriggerEnum>>();
var entity = await _dbContext.SomeEntities.FirstAsync();
IAttachedStateMachine<TriggerEnum> attachedMachine = machine.AttachToEntity(entity);
attachedMachine.Trigger(TriggerEnum.Publish);
It's wrong by architecture to have so many ways of changing values and we want to refactor this but to change approach, best practice must be chosen.
Please share your experience of resolving similar situation.
Update: found approach for DDD that called "aggregation root". It's looks good but only on paper (in theory) and works good with simple examples like "User, customer, shopping cart, order". On practice on every private setter you will create setter method (like in #2 of my examples). Also different methods for every system you work with. Not even talking about business logic inside database entity that violates SOLID's "single responsibility principle".
I have a web api action method which takes below Model as parameter (Post).
public class RequestModel
{
public string PartType { get; set; }
public int Quantity { get; set; }
public decimal UnitCost{ get; set; }
public bool? Owner { get; set; }
public bool? DoSplit { get; set; }
}
The options Owner/Do Split will be choosen by the user on UI and its based on Part Type. Also based on the Owner flag there is some other business logic which needs to be executed in combination with the DoSplit and Quantity. Hence I have many permuations and combinations. Going bruteforce the logic would go this way:
int existingQty = GetInitialQuantity(model.SerialId); //returns esisting qty
if(existingQty < model.Quantity && model.Owner)
{
// logic here
}
else if (existingQty < model.Quantity && model.Owner == false)
{
}
else if (existingQty = model.Quantity) // no need to check for DoSplit
{
}
etc..... more if else in combincation with qty comaprison, Dosplit and owner flag checks with null checks.
based on the different property values in the model (in combination) I need to do different actions. How to avoid if else and use a proper design patterns of C# here.
Since the model is passed from javascript through a web api call to my action method how can I use OOPs here for the requestmodel and avoid branching in the controller method ?
I think one of the main reasons that you have so much if/else is that you do not have the business logic in the object itsel but try to use the business logic from outside. As I do not get what your business logic is, my implementation might not work on your case, but i want to show you how to get rid of the if else in a simple case. The main goal is to not use the properties but only use the functions and let the object handle its state on its own. (lookup Tell dont ask and State Pattern)
lets look at this class
public class User
{
string name { get; set; }
bool isDisabled { get; set; }
}
using it might be like this
if (!user.isDisabled)
{
user.name = nameFromApi
}
but in this case you have to repeat this on every corner where you want to use the User. So consider this
public interface IUser
{
string name { get; }
IUser updateName(string newName);
IUser disableUser();
}
public class DisabledUser : IUser
{
public DisabledUser(IUser activeUser)
{
this.name = activeUser.name;
}
public string name { get; }
public IUser updateName(string newName)
{
return this;
}
public IUser disableUser()
{
return new DisabledUser(this);
}
}
public class ActiveUser : IUser
{
public ActiveUser(IUser user)
{
this.name = user.name;
}
public string name { get; private set; }
public IUser updateName(string newName)
{
this.name = newName;
return this;
}
public IUser disableUser()
{
return new DisabledUser(this);
}
}
In this way the if is gone and you actually gained something else: You can easily extend the implementation with other states like banned and you do not have to change the old implementation. Yes, it is more code, but way easier to maintain.
In you case i think you should be able to get rid of all the if/elses regarding the boolean flags, if you initialize the objects correctly. This is a powerfull pattern and you do not need to cast anything to be able to use the user.
I do not know your usecase for the quantity stuff, so I can not tell you how this might get resolved, but there is certainly a way to do that.
I have a simple pair of classes which for I've set up a mapping at initialization time.
public class Order {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Foo { get; set; }
}
public class OrderDTO {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Foo { get; set; }
}
...
Mapper.CreateMap<Order, OrderDTO>();
Now at a certain point I need to map an Order to an OrderDTO. BUT depending on some circumstances, I might need to ignore Foo during mapping. Let's also assume that I cannot "store" the condition in the source or destination object.
I know how I can configure the ignored properties at initialization time, but I have no idea how I could achieve such a dynamic runtime behavior.
Any help would be appreciated.
UPDATE
My use case for this behaviour is something like this. I have an ASP.NET MVC web grid view which displays a list of OrderDTOs. The users can edit the cell values individually. The grid view sends the edited data back to the server like a collection of OrderDTOs, BUT only the edited field values are set, the others are left as default. It also sends data about which fields are edited for each primary key. Now from this special scenario I need to map these "half-empty" objects to Orders, but of course, skip those properties which were not edited for each object.
The other way would be to do the manual mapping, or use Reflection somehow, but I was just thinking about if I could use AutoMapper in some way.
I've digged into the AutoMapper source code and samples, and found that there is a way to pass runtime parameters at mapping time.
A quick example setup and usage looks like this.
public class Order {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Foo { get; set; }
}
public class OrderDTO {
public int ID { get; set; }
public string Foo { get; set; }
}
...
Mapper.CreateMap<Order, OrderDTO>()
.ForMember(e => e.Foo, o => o.Condition((ResolutionContext c) => !c.Options.Items.ContainsKey("IWantToSkipFoo")));
...
var target = new Order();
target.ID = 2;
target.Foo = "This should not change";
var source = new OrderDTO();
source.ID = 10;
source.Foo = "This won't be mapped";
Mapper.Map(source, target, opts => { opts.Items["IWantToSkipFoo"] = true; });
Assert.AreEqual(target.ID, 10);
Assert.AreEqual(target.Foo, "This should not change");
In fact this looks quite "technical", but I still think there are quite many use cases when this is really helpful. If this logic is generalized according to application needs, and wrapped into some extension methods for example, then it could be much cleaner.
Expanding on BlackjacketMack's comment for others:
In your MappingProfile, add a ForAllMaps(...) call to your constructor.
using AutoMapper;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
public class MappingProfile : Profile
{
public MappingProfile()
{
ForAllMaps((typeMap, mappingExpression) =>
{
mappingExpression.ForAllMembers(memberOptions =>
{
memberOptions.Condition((o1, o2, o3, o4, resolutionContext) =>
{
var name = memberOptions.DestinationMember.Name;
if (resolutionContext.Items.TryGetValue(MemberExclusionKey, out object exclusions))
{
if (((IEnumerable<string>)exclusions).Contains(name))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
});
});
});
}
public static string MemberExclusionKey { get; } = "exclude";
}
Then, for ease of use, add the following class to create an extension method for yourself.
public static class IMappingOperationOptionsExtensions
{
public static void ExcludeMembers(this AutoMapper.IMappingOperationOptions options, params string[] members)
{
options.Items[MappingProfile.MemberExclusionKey] = members;
}
}
Finally, tie it all together: var target = mapper.Map<Order>(source, opts => opts.ExcludeMembers("Foo"));
I am using Domain Service to fetch data from database from Silverlight Client.
In DomainService1.cs, I have added the following:
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class Product
{
public int productID;
public string productName;
public List<Part> Parts = new List<Part>(); //Part is already present in Model designer
}
In DomainService1 class I added a new method to retrive a collection of the custom class object:
[EnableClientAccess()]
public class DomainService1 : LinqToEntitiesDomainService<HELPERDBNEWEntities1>
{
...
public List<Product> GetProductsList(...)
{
List<Product> resultProducts = new List<Product>();
...
return resultProducts;
}
}
From the silverlight client I am trying to access that method:
DomainService1 ds1 = new DomainService1();
var allproductList = ds1.GetProductsList(...);
ds1.Load<SLProduct>(allproductList).Completed += new EventHandler(Load_Completed); //Not correct usage
However it is not the correct way to call the new method. The reason I added a new class Product in DomainServices.cs is to have an efficient grouping. I cannot achieve the same using the model classes auto-generated by the entity framework.
How call I call the new method from the client?
I believe there is a similar question with an answer here:
Can a DomainService return a single custom type?
Also, here is some discussion about the overall problem of adding custom methods in a Domain Service:
http://forums.silverlight.net/t/159292.aspx/1
While I don't know what you mean by "it is not the correct way to call the new method", or if you're getting any errors, I thought maybe posting some working code might help.
My POCO
public class GraphPointWithMeta
{
[Key]
public Guid PK { get; set; }
public string SeriesName { get; set; }
public string EntityName { get; set; }
public double Amount { get; set; }
public GraphPointWithMeta(string seriesName, string entityName, double amount)
{
PK = Guid.NewGuid();
SeriesName = seriesName;
EntityName = entityName;
Amount = amount;
}
// Default ctor required.
public GraphPointWithMeta()
{
PK = Guid.NewGuid();
}
}
A method in the domain service (EnableClientAccess decorates the class)
public IEnumerable<GraphPointWithMeta> CallingActivityByCommercial()
{
List<GraphPointWithMeta> gps = new List<GraphPointWithMeta>();
// ...
return gps;
}
Called from the Silverlight client like
ctx1.Load(ctx1.CallingActivityByCommercialQuery(), CallingActivityCompleted, null);
client call back method
private void CallingActivityCompleted(LoadOperation<GraphPointWithMeta> lo)
{
// lo.Entities is an IEnumerable<GraphPointWithMeta>
}
I am not sure if your Product class is an actual entity or not. From the way it is defined, it does not appear to be an entity. My answer is assuming it is not an entity. You will need to apply the DataMemberAttribute for your Product properties, and you wouldn't load the product list - load is for Entity Queries (IQueryable on the service side). You would just invoke it like this (client side):
void GetProductList( Action<InvokeOperation<List<Product>>> callback)
{
DomainService ds1 = new DomainService();
ds1.GetProductsList(callback, null);//invoke operation call
}
And the domain service's (server side) method needs the InvokeAttribute and would look like this:
[EnableClientAccess]
public class MyDomainService
{
[Invoke]
public List<Product> GetProductList()
{
var list = new List<Product>();
...
return list;
}
}
And here is how your Product class might be defined (if it is not an entity):
public class Product
{
[DataMember]
public int productID;
[DataMember]
public string productName;
[DataMember]
public List<Part> Parts = new List<Part>(); // you might have some trouble here.
//not sure if any other attributes are needed for Parts,
//since you said this is an entity; also not sure if you
//can even have a list of entities or it needs to be an
//entity collection or what it needs to be. You might
//have to make two separate calls - one to get the products
//and then one to get the parts.
}
Like I said, i am not sure what Product inherits from... Hope this helps.