I am currently working on a project with NHibernate that requires security and auditing aspects. Those two seem to be perfect fits for the decorator pattern. Therefore my first step was to extract an interface for the entities to be decorated. Next, I decorated the relevant repositories to return decorated entities that implement the required auditing and security respectively. This works as expected.
However, a problem arises when NHibernate is asked to save a decorator instead of the base entity. Consider the following model as a simple example. It consists of an Engine that can be composed from multiple components.
public interface IEngine {
void AddComponent(IComponent component);
// Other Engine methods
}
public interface IComponent {
// Component methods
}
// Component basic entity mapped via NHibernate
public class Component : IComponent {
}
// Engine basic entity mapped via NHibernate
public class Engine {
private IList<IComponent> _components;
public Engine(IEnumerable<IComponent> components) {
_components = components.ToList();
}
public void AddComponent(IComponent component) {
_components.Add(component);
}
// Other engine methods
}
// Component security decorator
public class SecurityComponent : IComponent {
private readonly IComponent _innerComponent;
public SecurityComponent(IComponent innerComponent) {
_innerComponent = innerComponent;
}
// delegated and changed methods
}
// Engine security decorator
public class SecurityEngine {
private readonly IEngine _innerEngine;
public SecurityEngine(IEngine innerEngine) {
_innerEngine = innerEngine;
}
// delegated and changed methods
}
The code that is responsible for creating and saving Engines does not know anything about security decorators:
var components = componentRepository.RetrieveMatchingComponents(); // because the repository is decorated, this method returns SecurityComponents
var engine = new Engine(components);
engineRepository.Create(engine); // will fail because NHibernate cannot deal with the decorators referenced in the Engine
The only solution I can currently think of is to move the object creation into a factory that can also be decorated by the security code. The security factory would
need to decapsulate the SecurityComponents in order to construct a inner engine consisting only of basic entities. In addition the SecurityEngine would need to
decapsulate all incoming SecurityComponents. Finally the SecurityEngineRepository would need to decapsulate incoming SecurityEngines so that the innermost repository
that calls Session.Save receives only a basic entity Engine consisting only of basic entity Components. For example:
public class SecurityComponent : IComponent {
private readonly IComponent _innerComponent;
public SecurityComponent(IComponent innerComponent) {
_innerComponent = innerComponent;
}
public IComponent Decapsulate() { return _innerComponent; }
// delegated and changed methods
}
public class SecurityEngine {
private readonly IEngine _innerEngine;
public SecurityEngine(IEngine innerEngine) {
_innerEngine = innerEngine;
}
public void AddComponent(IComponent component) {
// do security stuff (e.g check if adding components is allowed)
IComponent result;
if (component is SecurityComponent) {
result = ((SecurityComponent)component).Decapsulate();
} else {
result = component;
}
_components.Add(result);
}
// other delegated and changed methods
}
public interface IEngineFactory {
IEngine CreateEngine(IEnumerable<IComponent> components);
}
public class EngineFactory : IEngineFactory {
public IEngine CreateEngine(IEnumerable<IComponent> components) { return new Engine(components); }
}
public class SecurityEngineFactory : IEngineFactory {
// decorator constructor
public IEngine CreateEngine(IEnumerable<IComponent> components) {
// decapsulate security components
var innerEngine = _innerEngineFactory.CreateEngine(decapsulatedComponents);
return new SecurityEngine(innerEngine);
}
}
The engine construction code:
var components = componentRepository.RetrieveMatchingComponents(); // because the repository is decorated, this method returns SecurityComponents
var engine = engineFactory.CreateEngine(components); // SecurityEngineFactory will return a SecurityEngine with a well formed inner Engine
engineRepository.Create(engine); // SecurityEngineRepository will decapsulate the SecurityEngine
This solution seems like a code smell to me. Is there a general pattern to solve this problem? Any suggestions on how to improve this solution?
Related
I've created a web api core 2.0 application.
I've got my main app and the Business Layer.
I want to place the automapper profile in the business layer so that all the mappings are made in the business layer. My business layer is just a class library project.
Is this possible? or do I need to place all my mapping in a Profile class in the main app?
Just a theoretical explanation can help.
Yes, it's possible but it depends on where the model classes reside.
You can give each layer or project a Profile where you map the appropriate model classes. Then in the project where you want to use the mapper, create the ObjectMapper class to load the Profiles.
namespace BL.Config
{
public class MapperProfile : Profile
{
public MapperProfile()
{
CreateMap<Entity, Dto>();
...
}
}
public class ObjectMapper
{
public static IMapper Mapper
{
get { return mapper.Value; }
}
public static IConfigurationProvider Configuration
{
get { return config.Value; }
}
public static Lazy<IMapper> mapper = new Lazy<IMapper>(() =>
{
var mapper = new Mapper(Configuration);
return mapper;
});
public static Lazy<IConfigurationProvider> config = new Lazy<IConfigurationProvider>(() =>
{
var config = new MapperConfiguration(cfg =>
{
cfg.AddProfile<BL.Config.MapperProfile>();
cfg.AddProfile<AppCore.Config.MapperProfile>(); // any other profiles you need to use
});
return config;
});
}
}
When I need to use AutoMapper, I use the ObjectMapper.Mapper to get my mapper instance. I like to add this to an abstract service.
public interface IAutoMapperService
{
IMapper Mapper { get; }
}
public abstract class AutoMapperService : IAutoMapperService
{
public IMapper Mapper
{
get { return BAL.Config.ObjectMapper.Mapper; }
}
}
And usage: The service has the Mapper member.
public class SomeService : AutoMapperService, ISomeService
{
public Foo GetFoo()
{
var foo = Mapper.Map<Foo>(bar);
return foo;
}
}
Or just implement the IAutoMapperService if you can't inherit another base class.
The downside is BL requires the AutoMapper dependency. But using this way I find I can hide many models from the other layers.
Hi I am trying to change a code example found here
http://imar.spaanjaars.com/577/aspnet-n-layered-applications-implementing-a-repository-using-ef-code-first-part-5
In his example he uses structure map, when I converted it to windsor I can get it to work with the one repository using the following.
container.Register(Component.For<IUnitOfWorkFactory>().ImplementedBy<EFUnitOfWorkFactory>(),
Component.For<IUnitOfWork>().ImplementedBy<EFUnitOfWork>(),
Component.For<Model.Repositories.IPeopleRepository>().ImplementedBy<PeopleRepository>().LifestyleTransient());
But what I really want to do is to map all the irepository based interfacees to thier implementation.
Here is the IRepository, T is the entity, K is the prmiary key type
public interface IRepository<T, K> where T : class
{
}
Its implementation Is
public abstract class Repository<T> : IRepository<T, int>, IDisposable where T : DomainEntity<int>
{
}
My controller has the interface IPeopleRepository as a constructor paramerter.
public interface IPeopleRepository : IRepository<Person, int>
{
}
public class PeopleRepository : Repository<Person>, IPeopleRepository
{
}
I want to have one register to register all repositories, something like this, but it wont match and i get the error Service 'Spaanjaars.ContactManager45.Model.Repositories.IPeopleRepository' which was not registered
container.Register(Component.For(typeof(IRepository<,>))
.ImplementedBy(typeof(Repository<>))
.LifestylePerWebRequest());
What am i missing in regards to this? is it because my irepository has 2 generic types?
In order to map all the IRepository based interfaces to their implementations .WithService.AllInterfaces() should be used.
This registration should solve your issue.
container.Register(
Classes.FromThisAssembly()
.BasedOn(typeof(IRepository<,>))
.WithService.AllInterfaces()
.LifestylePerWebRequest());
There are some tests to test it. I claim they are green.
[TestClass]
public class InstallerTest
{
private IWindsorContainer container;
[TestInitialize]
public void Init()
{
container = new WindsorContainer().Install(new Installer());
}
[TestMethod]
public void ResilveTest_ResolvesViaIRepository()
{
// act
var repository = container.Resolve<IRepository<Person, int>>();
// assert
repository.Should().BeOfType<PeopleRepository>();
}
[TestMethod]
public void ResilveTest_ResolvesViaIPeopleRepository()
{
// act
var repository = container.Resolve<IPeopleRepository>();
// assert
repository.Should().BeOfType<PeopleRepository>();
}
}
public class Installer : IWindsorInstaller
{
public void Install(IWindsorContainer container, IConfigurationStore store)
{
container.Register(
Classes.FromThisAssembly()
.BasedOn(typeof(IRepository<,>))
.WithService.AllInterfaces()
.LifestylePerThread());
}
}
As far as I see, unless my mvc4 app uses windows authentication (and so my controllers tries to read the User objects) when I create my controller instance from a TestMethod, the User object remains null. So my tests fails. What can I do to get them work?
Additional informations:
This is my test:
[TestMethod]
public void Create()
{
var ctrl = new LanguageController();
var res = ctrl.Manage() as ViewResult;
Assert.IsNotNull(res);
Assert.AreEqual(res.ViewName, "Create");
}
And my LanguageController has a base class:
public class LanguageController : MyController
{
Which has a constructor, inside it I try to discover the user rights by an external Right Manager.
public class MyController : Controller
{
protected Rights rm;
public MyController()
{
this.rm = RightManager.Discover(User.Identity);
}
Here in this constructor I see the User is null.
Okay, there are few issues with your Unit test and I will go through them as I explain why the User is null.
It is simply because you haven't provide a stubbed version of the User (IPrincipal) instance. So you need to find a way to inject that into your Controller. It is important you externalize as much dependencies in your Controller so it provides not a clean Controller to work with but also and importantly promote the testability.
What I would do inject the dependencies as below.
Your SUT (System Under Test)
public class MyController : Controller
{
protected Rights rm;
public MyController(IPrincipal user, IRightManager rightManager)
{
this.rm = rightManager.Discover(user.Identity);
}
}
public class LanguageController : MyController
{
public LanguageController(IPrincipal user, IRightManager rightManager)
: base(user, rightManager)
{
}
public ActionResult Manage()
{
return View("Manage");
}
}
This gives me the ability to inject a fake User and also a fake Right Manager.
So how would you get the real User, RightManager when you run the application at runtime?
You can inject the dependencies to the Controller during the Controller creation.
If you don't use a dependency injection framework (Ideally you should), you can still inject dependencies in a manual way. For example, creating property in your Controller and inject the real instance in the Controller, and during the Unit Testing time inject the fake instance etc. I won't go into detail as I'm deviating a bit - but you can find lot SO questions/web references in regards to this aspect.
Your Unit test
Now you have a way to inject your dependencies you can easily inject them from your Unit test. You can either using an Isolation framework (AKA and Mock object framework) or you can inject them as the old school way - which is the Hand written mocks/fakes/stubs. I suggest using an Isolation framework. Creating manual fakes, introduces unnecessary code duplication and maintenance issue. Since I don't know which framework you prefer, I created few handwritten fakes/mocks/stubs.
public class FakeRightManager : IRightManager {
public Rights Discover(IIdentity identity) {
return new Rights();
}
}
public class MyFakeIdentity : IIdentity {
public string AuthenticationType {
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public bool IsAuthenticated {
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
public string Name {
get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
}
public class MyFakePrincipal : IPrincipal {
public IIdentity Identity {
get { return new MyFakeIdentity(); }
}
public bool IsInRole(string role) {
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
}
You Unit Test :
[TestMethod]
public void ManageAction_Execute_ReturnsViewNameManager()
{
var fakeUser = new MyFakePrincipal();
var fakeRightManager = new FakeRightManager();
var ctrl = new LanguageController(fakeUser, fakeRightManager);
var res = ctrl.Manage() as ViewResult;
Assert.AreEqual<string>(res.ViewName, "Manage");
}
In your test you check for Assert.IsNotNull(res); this not necessary as if the res is null your second assert going to fail anyway.
Also always give a very descriptive precise Unit Test name. Reflect what you exactly testing. It improves the test readability and maintainability.
I think this falls under the concept of contextual binding, but the Ninject documentation, while very thorough, does not have any examples close enough to my current situation for me to really be certain. I'm still pretty confused.
I basically have classes that represent parameter structures for queries. For instance..
class CurrentUser {
string Email { get; set; }
}
And then an interface that represents its database retrieval (in the data layer)
class CurrentUserQuery : IQueryFor<CurrentUser> {
public CurrentUserQuery(ISession session) {
this.session = session;
}
public Member ExecuteQuery(CurrentUser parameters) {
var member = session.Query<Member>().Where(n => n.Email == CurrentUser.Email);
// validation logic
return member;
}
}
Now then, what I want to do is to establish a simple class that can take a given object and from it get the IQueryFor<T> class, construct it from my Ninject.IKernel (constructor parameter), and perform the ExecuteQuery method on it, passing through the given object.
The only way I have been able to do this was to basically do the following...
Bind<IQueryFor<CurrentUser>>().To<CurrentUserQuery>();
This solves the problem for that one query. But I anticipate there will be a great number of queries... so this method will become not only tedious, but also very prone to redundancy.
I was wondering if there is an inherit way in Ninject to incorporate this kind of behavior.
:-
In the end, my (ideal) way of using this would be ...
class HomeController : Controller {
public HomeController(ITransit transit) {
// injection of the transit service
}
public ActionResult CurrentMember() {
var member = transit.Send(new CurrentUser{ Email = User.Identity.Name });
}
}
Obviously that's not going to work right, since the Send method has no way of knowing the return type.
I've been dissecting Rhino Service Bus extensively and project Alexandria to try and make my light, light, lightweight implementation.
Update
I have been able to get a fairly desired result using .NET 4.0 dynamic objects, such as the following...
dynamic Send<T>(object message);
And then declaring my interface...
public interface IQueryFor<T,K>
{
K Execute(T message);
}
And then its use ...
public class TestCurrentMember
{
public string Email { get; set; }
}
public class TestCurrentMemberQuery : IConsumerFor<TestCurrentMember, Member>
{
private readonly ISession session;
public TestCurrentMemberQuery(ISession session) {
this.session = session;
}
public Member Execute(TestCurrentMember user)
{
// query the session for the current member
var member = session.Query<Member>()
.Where(n => n.Email == user.Email).SingleOrDefault();
return member;
}
}
And then in my Controller...
var member = Transit.Send<TestCurrentMemberQuery>(
new TestCurrentMember {
Email = User.Identity.Name
}
);
effectively using the <T> as my 'Hey, This is what implements the query parameters!'. It does work, but I feel pretty uncomfortable with it. Is this an inappropriate use of the dynamic function of .NET 4.0? Or is this more the reason why it exists in the first place?
Update (2)
For the sake of consistency and keeping this post relative to just the initial question, I'm opening up a different question for the dynamic issue.
Yes, you should be able to handle this with Ninject Conventions. I am just learning the Conventions part of Ninject, and the documentation is sparse; however, the source code for the Conventions extension is quite light and easy to read/navigate, also Remo Gloor is very helpful both here and on the mailing list.
The first thing I would try is a GenericBindingGenerator (changing the filters and scope as needed for your application):
internal class YourModule : NinjectModule
{
public override void Load()
{
Kernel.Scan(a => {
a.From(System.Reflection.Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
a.InTransientScope();
a.BindWith(new GenericBindingGenerator(typeof(IQueryFor<>)));
});
}
}
The heart of any BindingGenerator is this interface:
public interface IBindingGenerator
{
void Process(Type type, Func<IContext, object> scopeCallback, IKernel kernel);
}
The Default Binding Generator simply checks if the name of the class matches the name of the interface:
public void Process(Type type, Func<IContext, object> scopeCallback, IKernel kernel)
{
if (!type.IsInterface && !type.IsAbstract)
{
Type service = type.GetInterface("I" + type.Name, false);
if (service != null)
{
kernel.Bind(service).To(type).InScope(scopeCallback);
}
}
}
The GenericBindingGenerator takes a type as a constructor argument, and checks interfaces on classes scanned to see if the Generic definitions of those interfaces match the type passed into the constructor:
public GenericBindingGenerator(Type contractType)
{
if (!contractType.IsGenericType && !contractType.ContainsGenericParameters)
{
throw new ArgumentException("The contract must be an open generic type.", "contractType");
}
this._contractType = contractType;
}
public void Process(Type type, Func<IContext, object> scopeCallback, IKernel kernel)
{
Type service = this.ResolveClosingInterface(type);
if (service != null)
{
kernel.Bind(service).To(type).InScope(scopeCallback);
}
}
public Type ResolveClosingInterface(Type targetType)
{
if (!targetType.IsInterface && !targetType.IsAbstract)
{
do
{
foreach (Type type in targetType.GetInterfaces())
{
if (type.IsGenericType && (type.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == this._contractType))
{
return type;
}
}
targetType = targetType.BaseType;
}
while (targetType != TypeOfObject);
}
return null;
}
So, when the Conventions extension scans the class CurrentUserQuery it will see the interface IQueryFor<CurrentUser>. The generic definition of that interface is IQueryFor<>, so it will match and that type should get registered for that interface.
Lastly, there is a RegexBindingGenerator. It tries to match interfaces of the classes scanned to a Regex given as a constructor argument. If you want to see the details of how that operates, you should be able to peruse the source code for it now.
Also, you should be able to write any implementation of IBindingGenerator that you may need, as the contract is quite simple.
I'm building an application which uses AutoFac 2 for DI. I've been reading that using a static IoCHelper (Service Locator) should be avoided.
IoCHelper.cs
public static class IoCHelper
{
private static AutofacDependencyResolver _resolver;
public static void InitializeWith(AutofacDependencyResolver resolver)
{
_resolver = resolver;
}
public static T Resolve<T>()
{
return _resolver.Resolve<T>();
}
}
From answers to a previous question, I found a way to help reduce the need for using my IoCHelper in my UnitOfWork through the use of Auto-generated Factories. Continuing down this path, I'm curious if I can completely eliminate my IoCHelper.
Here is the scenario:
I have a static Settings class that serves as a wrapper around my configuration implementation. Since the Settings class is a dependency to a majority of my other classes, the wrapper keeps me from having to inject the settings class all over my application.
Settings.cs
public static class Settings
{
public static IAppSettings AppSettings
{
get
{
return IoCHelper.Resolve<IAppSettings>();
}
}
}
public interface IAppSettings
{
string Setting1 { get; }
string Setting2 { get; }
}
public class AppSettings : IAppSettings
{
public string Setting1
{
get
{
return GetSettings().AppSettings["setting1"];
}
}
public string Setting2
{
get
{
return GetSettings().AppSettings["setting2"];
}
}
protected static IConfigurationSettings GetSettings()
{
return IoCHelper.Resolve<IConfigurationSettings>();
}
}
Is there a way to handle this without using a service locator and without having to resort to injecting AppSettings into each and every class? Listed below are the 3 areas in which I keep leaning on ServiceLocator instead of constructor injection:
AppSettings
Logging
Caching
I would rather inject IAppSettings into every class that needs it just to keep them clean from the hidden dependency on Settings. Question is, do you really need to sprinkle that dependency into each and every class?
If you really want to go with a static Settings class I would at least try to make it test-friendly/fakeable. Consider this:
public static class Settings
{
public static Func<IAppSettings> AppSettings { get; set; }
}
And where you build your container:
var builder = new ContainerBuilder();
...
var container = builder.Build();
Settings.AppSettings = () => container.Resolve<IAppSettings>();
This would allow to swap out with fakes during test:
Settings.AppSettings = () => new Mock<IAppSettings>().Object;
Now the AppSettings class (which I assume there is only one of) you could do with regular constructor injection. I assume also that you really want to do a resolve on each call to your settings properties, thus injecting a factory delegate that retrieves an instance when needed. If this is not needed you should of course inject the IConfigurationSettings service directly.
public class AppSettings : IAppSettings
{
private readonly Func<IConfigurationSettings> _configurationSettings;
public AppSettings(Func<IConfigurationSettings> configurationSettings)
{
_configurationSettings = configurationSettings;
}
public string Setting1
{
get
{
return _configurationSettings().AppSettings["setting1"];
}
}
public string Setting2
{
get
{
return _configurationSettings().AppSettings["setting2"];
}
}
}