NUnit - Multiple properties of the same name? Linking to requirements - testing

I'm linking all our our System Tests to test cases and to our Requirements. Every requirement has an ID. Every Test Case / System Tests tests a variety of requirements. Every module of code links to multiple requirements.
I'm trying to find the best way to link every system test to its driving requirements.
I was hoping to do something like:
[NUnit.Framework.Property("Release", "6.0.0")]
[NUnit.Framework.Property("Requirement", "FR50082")]
[NUnit.Framework.Property("Requirement", "FR50084")]
[NUnit.Framework.Property("Requirement", "FR50085")]
[TestCase(....)]
public void TestSomething(string a, string b...)
However, that will break because Property is a Key-Value pair. The system will not allow me to have multiple Properties with the same key.
The reason I'm wanting this is to be able to test specific requirements in our system if a module changes that touches these requirements.
Rather than run over 1,000 system tests on every build, this would allow us to target what to test based on changes done to our code.
Some system tests run upwards of 5 minutes (Enterprise healthcare system), so "Just run all of them" isn't a viable solution. We do that, but only before promoting through our environments.
Thoughts?

Have you considered a custom property attribute derived from NUnit.Framework.Property?
Something like the following seems like it might work for you judging by a LINQPad 4 "query" with Language set to C# Program and a reference to nunit.framework.dll (version 2.4.8) added:
// main method to exercise a our PoC test case
void Main()
{
TestSomething("a", "b");
}
// our PoC custom property attribute
[AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple=false)]
public class RequirementsAttribute : NUnit.Framework.PropertyAttribute
{
public RequirementsAttribute(string[] requirements)
: base(requirements)
{
}
}
// a test case using our custom property attribute to relate it to multiple requirements
[Requirements(new string[] { "FR50082", "FR50084" })]
[TestCase("PoCTest")]
public void TestSomething(string a, string b)
{
// blah, blah, blah
Assert.AreNotEqual(a, b);
}

For some reason I could not add the link to the google discussion post to the comment above, so I have added the post here too. (The link is https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nunit-discuss/ndV3VTPndck)
A Category is always displayed in TE as "Category [xxxxxxx]", where xxxxx is whatever string you send in, if you don't specify any, it will be the name of the class derived from CategoryAttribute.
If you want to use Category, you should, as Charlie said on the google post, use one entry per requirement. If you add the string Requirement to the value, it can look pretty good, but most follow the rules in (1) above, it could be like:
Category[Requirement:FR12345]
Code:
public class RequirementAttribute : CategoryAttribute
{
public RequirementAttribute(string s)
: base("Requirement:" + s)
{ }
}
If you want it to display like : Requirement[FR12345], then you MUST use a Property, but you can't have multiple Keys, so only one such per test.
Code:
public class RequirementAttribute : PropertyAttribute
{
public RequirementAttribute(string s)
: base(s)
{}
}
4: If you want to have multiple requirements per test and still have something like the display in (3), you must make the keys unique. It doesn't need to look too bad. In the code below I have just added a counter to it.
It will display as :
Requirement-1[FR12345]
Requirement-2[FR23456]
Code:
public class RequirementAttribute : PropertyAttribute
{
public RequirementAttribute(string[] array)
{
int i = 0;
foreach (var s in array)
{
Properties.Add("Requirement-" + i, s);
i++;
}
}
}
and you use it like:
[Requirement(new[] { "1234", "2345" })]
[Test]
public void Test()
{ }
(And if you want a syntax without the "new", the previous answer show that syntax with the param instead.)
Option 4 will not group by requirement number, but by the counter. If you want to group by requirement number you can use option 5:
5.
Add the requirement number to the key, but leave the value blank.
It will look like:
Requirement-FR12345
In this way, you also skip the prefix and have each requirement as its own kind of category in the TE.
Code:
public class RequirementAttribute : PropertyAttribute
{
public RequirementAttribute(string[] array)
{
foreach (var s in array)
{
Properties.Add("Requirement-" + s,"");
}
}
}
And, you could of course also skip the prefix altogether.

Related

How to write an APEX #test for a picklist method?

I was searching for answears but I couldn't find it. It might be a beginner question, anyhow I am stuck.
What I am trying to write is a test in Apex. Basically the Apex code gets field names from one specific object. Each fieldname will be shown in a picklist, one after the other (that part is a LWC JS and HTML file).
So, only want to test the Apex for the moment.
I don't know how to check that a list contains 2 parameters, and those parameters are object and field. Then the values are correctly returned, and I don't know how to continue.
Here's the Apex class with the method, which I want to test.
public without sharing class LeadController {
public static List <String> getMultiPicklistValues(String objectType, String selectedField) {
List<String> plValues = new List<String>();
Schema.SObjectType convertToObj = Schema.getGlobalDescribe().get(objectType);
Schema.DescribeSObjectResult objDescribe = convertToObj.getDescribe();
Schema.DescribeFieldResult objFieldInfo = objDescribe.fields.getMap().get(selectedField).getDescribe();
List<Schema.PicklistEntry> picklistvalues = objFieldInfo.getPicklistValues();
for(Schema.PicklistEntry plv: picklistvalues) {
plValues.add(plv.getValue());
}
plValues.sort();
return plValues;
}
}
I welcome any answers.
Thank you!
This might be a decent start, just change the class name back to yours.
#isTest
public class Stack73155432Test {
#isTest
public static void testHappyFlow(){
List<String> picklistValues = Stack73155432.getMultiPicklistValues('Lead', 'LeadSource');
// these are just examples
System.assert(!picklistValues.isEmpty(), 'Should return something');
System.assert(picklistValues.size() > 5, 'At least 5 values? I dunno, whatever is right for your org');
System.assert(picklistValues[0] < picklistValues[1], 'Should be sorted alphabetically');
System.assert(picklistValues.contains('Web'), 'Or whatever values you have in the org');
}
#isTest
public static void testErrorFlow(){
// this is actually not too useful. You might want to catch this in your main code and throw AuraHandledExceptions?
try{
Stack73155432.getMultiPicklistValues('Account', 'AsdfNoSuchField');
System.assert(false, 'This should have thrown');
} catch(NullPointerException npe){
System.assert(npe.getMessage().startsWith('Attempt to de-reference a null object'), npe.getMessage());
}
}
}

OptaPlanner - The entity was never added to this ScoreDirector error

I am implementing an algorithm similar to the NurseRoster one in OptaPlanner. I need to implement a rule in drools that check if the Employee cannot work more days than the number of days in his contract. Since i couldn't figure out how to make this in drools, i decided to write it as a method in a class, and then use it in drools to check if the constraint has been broken. Since i needed a List of ShiftAssignments in the Employee class, i needed to use an #InverseRelationShadowVariable that updated that list automatically an Employee got assigned to a Shift. Since my Employee now has to be a PlanningEntity, the error The entity was never added to this ScoreDirector appeared. I believe the error is caused by my ShiftAssignment entity, which has a #ValueRangeProvider of employees that can work in that Shift. I think this is due to the fact that ScoreDirector.beforeEntityAdded and ScoreDirector.afterEntityAdded were never called, hence the error. For some reason when i removed that range provider from ShiftAssignment and put it on NurseRoster which is the #PlanningSolution, it worked.
Here is the code:
Employee:
#InverseRelationShadowVariable(sourceVariableName = "employee")
public List<ShiftAssignment> getEmployeeAssignedToShiftAssignments() {
return employeeAssignedToShiftAssignments;
}
ShiftAssignment:
#PlanningVariable(valueRangeProviderRefs = {
"employeeRange" }, strengthComparatorClass = EmployeeStrengthComparator.class,nullable = true)
public Employee getEmployee() {
return employee;
}
// the value range for this planning entity
#ValueRangeProvider(id = "employeeRange")
public List<Employee> getPossibleEmployees() {
return getShift().getEmployeesThatCanWorkThisShift();
}
NurseRoster:
#ValueRangeProvider(id = "employeeRange")
#PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
public List<Employee> getEmployeeList() {
return employeeList;
}
And this is the method i use to update that listOfEmployeesThatCanWorkThisShift:
public static void checkIfAnEmployeeCanBelongInGivenShiftAssignmentValueRange(NurseRoster nurseRoster) {
List<Shift> shiftList = nurseRoster.getShiftList();
List<Employee> employeeList = nurseRoster.getEmployeeList();
for (Shift shift : shiftList) {
List<Employee> employeesThatCanWorkThisShift = new ArrayList<>();
String shiftDate = shift.getShiftDate().getDateString();
ShiftTypeDefinition shiftTypeDefinitionForShift = shift.getShiftType().getShiftTypeDefinition();
for (Employee employee : employeeList) {
AgentDailySettings agentDailySetting = SearchThroughSolution.findAgentDailySetting(employee, shiftDate);
List<ShiftTypeDefinition> shiftTypeDefinitions = agentDailySetting.getShiftTypeDefinitions();
if (shiftTypeDefinitions.contains(shiftTypeDefinitionForShift)) {
employeesThatCanWorkThisShift.add(employee);
}
}
shift.setEmployeesThatCanWorkThisShift(employeesThatCanWorkThisShift);
}
}
And the rule that i use:
rule "maxDaysInPeriod"
when
$shiftAssignment : ShiftAssignment(employee != null)
then
int differentDaysInPeriod = MethodsUsedInScoreCalculation.employeeMaxDaysPerPeriod($shiftAssignment.getEmployee());
int maxDaysInPeriod = $shiftAssignment.getEmployee().getAgentPeriodSettings().getMaxDaysInPeriod();
if(differentDaysInPeriod > maxDaysInPeriod)
{
scoreHolder.addHardConstraintMatch(kcontext, differentDaysInPeriod - maxDaysInPeriod);
}
end
How can i fix this error?
This has definitely something to do with the solution cloning that is happening when a "new best solution" is created.
I encountered the same error when i implemented custom solution cloning. In my project i have multiple planning entity classes and all of them have references to each other (either a single value or a List). So when solution cloning is happening the references need to be updated so they can point to the cloned values. This is something that the default cloning process is doing without a problem, and thus leaving the solution in a consistent state. It even updates the Lists of planning entity instances in the parent planning entities correctly (covered by the method "cloneCollectionsElementIfNeeded" from the class "FieldAccessingSolutionCloner" from the OptaPlanner core).
Just a demonstration what i have when it comes to the planning entity classes:
#PlanningEntity
public class ParentPlanningEntityClass{
List<ChildPlanningEntityClass> childPlanningEntityClassList;
}
#PlanningEntity
public class ChildPlanningEntityClass{
ParentPlanningEntityClass parentPlanningEntityClass;
}
At first i did not update any of the references and got the error even for "ChildPlanningEntityClass". Then i have written the code that updates the references. When it comes to the planning entity instances that were coming from the class "ChildPlanningEntityClass" everything was okay at this point because they were pointing to the cloned object. What i did wrong in the "ParentPlanningEntityClass" case was that i did not create the "childPlanningEntityClassList" list from scratch with "new ArrayList();", but instead i just updated the elements of the list (using the "set" method) to point at the cloned instances of the "ChildPlanningEntityClass" class. When creating a "new ArrayList();", filling the elements to point to the cloned objects and setting the "childPlanningEntityClassList" list everything was consistent (tested with FULL_ASSERT).
So just connecting it to my issue maybe the list "employeeAssignedToShiftAssignments" is not created from scratch with "new ArrayList();" and elements instead just get added or removed from the list. So what could happen (if the list is not created from scratch) here is that both the working and the new best solution (the clone) will point to the same list and when the working solution would continue to change this list it would corrupt the best solution.

Returning the class which is a foreign key in the database

I want to ask this question and I tried to search for a while without concrete answers.
I have made a database and used LINQ2SQL to auto-generate the classes needed.
I have set the serialization mode to unidirectional to make sure the classes are being serialized and making the datamembers.
Now, what I want to know is, how I can send the references to the other classes (which has been made through LINQ2SQL).
F.x. I have a Class called Scheduler which is referencing Reservation, and Seat, because Reservation and Seat have foreign keys.
You can see the dbml here:
http://imgur.com/rR6OxDi
The dbml file. This is the model of our database
Also you can see that when I run the WCF test client it does not return the objects of Seats and Reservation.
http://imgur.com/brxNBz7
Hopefully you can all help.
UPDATE
Here is the snippet of the code provided by LINQ2SQL.
This is the fields for the scheduler
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.TableAttribute(Name="dbo.Scheduler")]
[global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataContractAttribute()]
public partial class Scheduler : INotifyPropertyChanging, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private static PropertyChangingEventArgs emptyChangingEventArgs = new PropertyChangingEventArgs(String.Empty);
private int _SchID;
private System.Nullable<System.DateTime> _Date;
private System.Nullable<System.TimeSpan> _Starttime;
private System.Nullable<int> _MovieID;
private System.Nullable<int> _HallID;
private EntitySet<Seat> _Seats;
private EntitySet<Reservation> _Reservations;
private EntityRef<Hall> _Hall;
private EntityRef<Movie> _Movie;
private bool serializing;
And here is the snippet part of the code where it references to Reservation and Seat:
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.AssociationAttribute(Name="Scheduler_Seat", Storage="_Seats", ThisKey="SchID", OtherKey="SchedulerID")]
[global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(Order=6, EmitDefaultValue=false)]
public EntitySet<Seat> Seats
{
get
{
if ((this.serializing
&& (this._Seats.HasLoadedOrAssignedValues == false)))
{
return null;
}
return this._Seats;
}
set
{
this._Seats.Assign(value);
}
}
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.AssociationAttribute(Name="Scheduler_Reservation", Storage="_Reservations", ThisKey="SchID", OtherKey="SchedulerID")]
[global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(Order=7, EmitDefaultValue=false)]
public EntitySet<Reservation> Reservations
{
get
{
if ((this.serializing
&& (this._Reservations.HasLoadedOrAssignedValues == false)))
{
return null;
}
return this._Reservations;
}
set
{
this._Reservations.Assign(value);
}
}
Update 2
Here is the Reservation class which LINQ2SQL made:
Here is the fields:
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.TableAttribute(Name="dbo.Reservation")]
[global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataContractAttribute()]
public partial class Reservation : INotifyPropertyChanging, INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private static PropertyChangingEventArgs emptyChangingEventArgs = new PropertyChangingEventArgs(String.Empty);
private int _ResID;
private System.Nullable<int> _CustomerID;
private System.Nullable<int> _SchedulerID;
private string _Row;
private string _Seat;
private EntityRef<Customer> _Customer;
private EntityRef<Scheduler> _Scheduler;
And here is the Scheduler reference part of the class
[global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.AssociationAttribute(Name="Scheduler_Reservation", Storage="_Scheduler", ThisKey="SchedulerID", OtherKey="SchID", IsForeignKey=true, DeleteRule="SET DEFAULT")]
public Scheduler Scheduler
{
get
{
return this._Scheduler.Entity;
}
set
{
Scheduler previousValue = this._Scheduler.Entity;
if (((previousValue != value)
|| (this._Scheduler.HasLoadedOrAssignedValue == false)))
{
this.SendPropertyChanging();
if ((previousValue != null))
{
this._Scheduler.Entity = null;
previousValue.Reservations.Remove(this);
}
this._Scheduler.Entity = value;
if ((value != null))
{
value.Reservations.Add(this);
this._SchedulerID = value.SchID;
}
else
{
this._SchedulerID = default(Nullable<int>);
}
this.SendPropertyChanged("Scheduler");
}
}
}
All of these things should lead to where I could get the object like this:
Scheduler[] schedulers = client.GetAllSchedulers();
Reservation reservation = schedulers[0].Reservations.First();
But get this error due to WCF not sending the object, (which you could see in picture one).
Which is this error:
Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of
the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more
information about the error and where it originated in the code.
Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Sequence contains
no elements
UPDATE 3:
Ok so it appears that it works somehow.
I just had to make a join between the Scheduler and Reservation.
Also whenever I debug the code I can see the variables are there. (Due to my reputation I can not post links).
But some of you might recognize the following whenever you try to view a result in debug mode:
"expanding the results view will enumerate the ienumerable c#"
Whenever I do this, it works, but not if I run it in release mode.
Looks like only object types (Reservation,Seat) have null values.
I'm guessing either you are missing DataContract/DataMember attributes in your complex types or you might need to include KnownTypeAttribute
It'd be easier to tell if you could provide some code.
EDIT
What your are talking about later is deferred loading. See this blog for more information on deferred vs immediate loading.
When you expand the IEnumerable in debug mode, that makes the request to retrieve/load the objects.
What your probably want is to load your Reservation,Seat objects along with your Scheduler object. Something like the following:
YourDatabaseContext database = new YourDatabaseContext ())
{
DataLoadOptions options = new DataLoadOptions();
options.LoadWith<Scheduler>(sch=> sch.Reservation);
options.LoadWith<Scheduler>(sch=> sch.Seat);
database.LoadOptions = options;
}
See DataLoadOptions for more details.
If you want to understand deferred execution. See this article for more details.
Quote from the article:
By default LINQ uses deferred query execution. This means when you write a LINQ query it doesn't execute. LINQ queries execute when you 'touch' the query results. This means you can change the underlying collection and run the same query subsequent times in the same scope. Touching the data means accessing the results, for instance in a for loop or by using an aggregate operator like Average or AsParallel on the results.

Use MEF to compose parts but postpone the creation of the parts

As explained in these questions I'm trying to build an application that consists of a host and multiple task processing clients. With some help I have figured out how to discover and serialize part definitions so that I could store those definitions without having to have the actual runtime type loaded.
The next step I want to achieve (or next two steps really) is that I want to split the composition of parts from the actual creation and connection of the objects (represented by those parts). So if I have a set of parts then I would like to be able to do the following thing (in pseudo-code):
public sealed class Host
{
public CreationScript Compose()
{
CreationScript result;
var container = new DelayLoadCompositionContainer(
s => result = s);
container.Compose();
return script;
}
public static void Main()
{
var script = Compose();
// Send the script to the client application
SendToClient(script);
}
}
// Lives inside other application
public sealed class Client
{
public void Load(CreationScript script)
{
var container = new ScriptLoader(script);
container.Load();
}
public static void Main(string scriptText)
{
var script = new CreationScript(scriptText);
Load(script);
}
}
So that way I can compose the parts in the host application, but actually load the code and execute it in the client application. The goal is to put all the smarts of deciding what to load in one location (the host) while the actual work can be done anywhere (by the clients).
Essentially what I'm looking for is some way of getting the ComposablePart graph that MEF implicitly creates.
Now my question is if there are any bits in MEF that would allow me to implement this kind of behaviour? I suspect that the provider model may help me with this but that is a rather large and complex part of MEF so any guidelines would be helpful.
From lots of investigation it seems that is not possible to separate the composition process from the instantiation process in MEF so I have had to create my own approach for this problem. The solution assumes that the scanning of plugins results in having the type, import and export data stored somehow.
In order to compose parts you need to keep track of each part instance and how it is connected to other part instances. The simplest way to do this is to make use of a graph data structure that keeps track of which import is connected to which export.
public sealed class CompositionCollection
{
private readonly Dictionary<PartId, PartDefinition> m_Parts;
private readonly Graph<PartId, PartEdge> m_PartConnections;
public PartId Add(PartDefinition definition)
{
var id = new PartId();
m_Parts.Add(id, definition);
m_PartConnections.AddVertex(id);
return id;
}
public void Connect(
PartId importingPart,
MyImportDefinition import,
PartId exportingPart,
MyExportDefinition export)
{
// Assume that edges point from the export to the import
m_PartConnections.AddEdge(
new PartEdge(
exportingPart,
export,
importingPart,
import));
}
}
Note that before connecting two parts it is necessary to check if the import can be connected to the export. In other cases MEF does that but in this case we'll need to do that ourselves. An example of how to approach that is:
public bool Accepts(
MyImportDefinition importDefinition,
MyExportDefinition exportDefinition)
{
if (!string.Equals(
importDefinition.ContractName,
exportDefinition.ContractName,
StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase))
{
return false;
}
// Determine what the actual type is we're importing. MEF provides us with
// that information through the RequiredTypeIdentity property. We'll
// get the type identity first (e.g. System.String)
var importRequiredType = importDefinition.RequiredTypeIdentity;
// Once we have the type identity we need to get the type information
// (still in serialized format of course)
var importRequiredTypeDef =
m_Repository.TypeByIdentity(importRequiredType);
// Now find the type we're exporting
var exportType = ExportedType(exportDefinition);
if (AvailableTypeMatchesRequiredType(importRequiredType, exportType))
{
return true;
}
// The import and export can't directly be mapped so maybe the import is a
// special case. Try those
Func<TypeIdentity, TypeDefinition> toDefinition =
t => m_Repository.TypeByIdentity(t);
if (ImportIsCollection(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesCollectionImport(
importRequiredType,
exportType,
toDefinition))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsLazy(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesLazyImport(importRequiredType, exportType))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsFunc(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesFuncImport(
importRequiredType,
exportType,
exportDefinition))
{
return true;
}
if (ImportIsAction(importRequiredTypeDef, toDefinition)
&& ExportMatchesActionImport(importRequiredType, exportDefinition))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
Note that the special cases (like IEnumerable<T>, Lazy<T> etc.) require determining if the importing type is based on a generic type which can be a bit tricky.
Once all the composition information is stored it is possible to do the instantiation of the parts at any point in time because all the required information is available. Instantiation requires a generous helping of reflection combined with the use of the trusty Activator class and will be left as an exercise to the reader.

Encapsulating common logic (domain driven design, best practices)

Updated: 09/02/2009 - Revised question, provided better examples, added bounty.
Hi,
I'm building a PHP application using the data mapper pattern between the database and the entities (domain objects). My question is:
What is the best way to encapsulate a commonly performed task?
For example, one common task is retrieving one or more site entities from the site mapper, and their associated (home) page entities from the page mapper. At present, I would do that like this:
$siteMapper = new Site_Mapper();
$site = $siteMapper->findByid(1);
$pageMapper = new Page_Mapper();
$site->addPage($pageMapper->findHome($site->getId()));
Now that's a fairly trivial example, but it gets more complicated in reality, as each site also has an associated locale, and the page actually has multiple revisions (although for the purposes of this task I'd only be interested in the most recent one).
I'm going to need to do this (get the site and associated home page, locale etc.) in multiple places within my application, and I cant think of the best way/place to encapsulate this task, so that I don't have to repeat it all over the place. Ideally I'd like to end up with something like this:
$someObject = new SomeClass();
$site = $someObject->someMethod(1); // or
$sites = $someObject->someOtherMethod();
Where the resulting site entities already have their associated entities created and ready for use.
The same problem occurs when saving these objects back. Say I have a site entity and associated home page entity, and they've both been modified, I have to do something like this:
$siteMapper->save($site);
$pageMapper->save($site->getHomePage());
Again, trivial, but this example is simplified. Duplication of code still applies.
In my mind it makes sense to have some sort of central object that could take care of:
Retrieving a site (or sites) and all nessessary associated entities
Creating new site entities with new associated entities
Taking a site (or sites) and saving it and all associated entities (if they've changed)
So back to my question, what should this object be?
The existing mapper object?
Something based on the repository pattern?*
Something based on the unit of work patten?*
Something else?
* I don't fully understand either of these, as you can probably guess.
Is there a standard way to approach this problem, and could someone provide a short description of how they'd implement it? I'm not looking for anyone to provide a fully working implementation, just the theory.
Thanks,
Jack
Using the repository/service pattern, your Repository classes would provide a simple CRUD interface for each of your entities, then the Service classes would be an additional layer that performs additional logic like attaching entity dependencies. The rest of your app then only utilizes the Services. Your example might look like this:
$site = $siteService->getSiteById(1); // or
$sites = $siteService->getAllSites();
Then inside the SiteService class you would have something like this:
function getSiteById($id) {
$site = $siteRepository->getSiteById($id);
foreach ($pageRepository->getPagesBySiteId($site->id) as $page)
{
$site->pages[] = $page;
}
return $site;
}
I don't know PHP that well so please excuse if there is something wrong syntactically.
[Edit: this entry attempts to address the fact that it is oftentimes easier to write custom code to directly deal with a situation than it is to try to fit the problem into a pattern.]
Patterns are nice in concept, but they don't always "map". After years of high end PHP development, we have settled on a very direct way of handling such matters. Consider this:
File: Site.php
class Site
{
public static function Select($ID)
{
//Ensure current user has access to ID
//Lookup and return data
}
public static function Insert($aData)
{
//Validate $aData
//In the event of errors, raise a ValidationError($ErrorList)
//Do whatever it is you are doing
//Return new ID
}
public static function Update($ID, $aData)
{
//Validate $aData
//In the event of errors, raise a ValidationError($ErrorList)
//Update necessary fields
}
Then, in order to call it (from anywhere), just run:
$aData = Site::Select(123);
Site::Update(123, array('FirstName' => 'New First Name'));
$ID = Site::Insert(array(...))
One thing to keep in mind about OO programming and PHP... PHP does not keep "state" between requests, so creating an object instance just to have it immediately destroyed does not often make sense.
I'd probably start by extracting the common task to a helper method somewhere, then waiting to see what the design calls for. It feels like it's too early to tell.
What would you name this method ? The name usually hints at where the method belongs.
class Page {
public $id, $title, $url;
public function __construct($id=false) {
$this->id = $id;
}
public function save() {
// ...
}
}
class Site {
public $id = '';
public $pages = array();
function __construct($id) {
$this->id = $id;
foreach ($this->getPages() as $page_id) {
$this->pages[] = new Page($page_id);
}
}
private function getPages() {
// ...
}
public function addPage($url) {
$page = ($this->pages[] = new Page());
$page->url = $url;
return $page;
}
public function save() {
foreach ($this->pages as $page) {
$page->save();
}
// ..
}
}
$site = new Site($id);
$page = $site->addPage('/');
$page->title = 'Home';
$site->save();
Make your Site object an Aggregate Root to encapsulate the complex association and ensure consistency.
Then create a SiteRepository that has the responsibility of retrieving the Site aggregate and populating its children (including all Pages).
You will not need a separate PageRepository (assuming that you don't make Page a separate Aggregate Root), and your SiteRepository should have the responsibility of retrieving the Page objects as well (in your case by using your existing Mappers).
So:
$siteRepository = new SiteRepository($myDbConfig);
$site = $siteRepository->findById(1); // will have Page children attached
And then the findById method would be responsible for also finding all Page children of the Site. This will have a similar structure to the answer CodeMonkey1 gave, however I believe you will benefit more by using the Aggregate and Repository patterns, rather than creating a specific Service for this task. Any other retrieval/querying/updating of the Site aggregate, including any of its child objects, would be done through the same SiteRepository.
Edit: Here's a short DDD Guide to help you with the terminology, although I'd really recommend reading Evans if you want the whole picture.