How to move data across layers (MVC5 + EF6 + DDD)? - asp.net-mvc

We have a MVC 5 application using DDD principles. I need to send data from the Base Controller to the Base Repository, so I can log what user executed an operation for auditing purposes. The application structure is: Presentation (MVC 5) > Application (AppService) > Domain (Service) > Infra (Repository). The idea is to keep each layer independent from the other as much as possible.
In the BaseController I have the logged user from the session, that is accessible to all classes in the presentation layer:
public ProfileApp ProfileApp
{
get { return Session?[Constantes.Session.PROFILE] == null ? CreateProfileApp() : (ProfileApp)Session[Constantes.Session.PROFILE]; }
set { Session[Constantes.Session.PROFILE] = value; }
}
How can I get that information to the repository, in the Add method, declared as below:
public class RepositoryBase<TEntity> : IDisposable, IRepositoryBase<TEntity> where TEntity : BaseIdentity
{
protected VGPartnerDBContext _Db;
protected DbSet<TEntity> _DbSet;
public RepositoryBase(VGPartnerDBContext p_VGPartnerDBContext)
{
_Db = p_VGPartnerDBContext;
_DbSet = _Db.Set<TEntity>();
}
protected virtual T Add<T>(T obj) where T: BaseIdentity
{
return _Db.Set<T>().Add(obj);
}
public virtual TEntity Add(TEntity obj)
{
return Add<TEntity>(obj);
}

I would suggest to do the following, From you controller or Application layer you need to transfer and store data in DB right? In that case you need to create an base DTO
class AuditableDto
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string ModifedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime ModifiedDate { get; set; }
}
And same for your Auditable entities you need a base class like this.
class AuditableEntity
{
public string Username { get; set; }
public string ModifedBy { get; set; }
public DateTime ModifiedDate { get; set; }
}
And then you can for each request from UI to you action methods in controller make a generic filter to add in your AuditableDtos this metada that you need and in same way you propogate this information to the Entities. In DDD you should follow principle of Persistence Ignorance and Infrastructure ignorance, all layer shoud depend on Domain layer.

Related

Entity Framework Core Key attribute error to call procedure

I am using ASP.NET Core with Entity Framework Core.
I have a problem with the data model when trying to call a SQL Server procedure.
FromSql method to bind data model is not working if I do not set Key attribute.
This is my code:
Data model class
public class AdminMemberLoginResult
{
public int AdminIndex { get; set; }
public string AdminId { get; set; }
public string AdminName { get; set; }
public bool IsChangePwd { get; set; }
}
DbContext class
public partial class GameContext : DbContext
{
public GameContext()
{
}
public GameContext(DbContextOptions<GameContext> dbContextOption) : base(dbContextOption)
{
}
protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
{
optionsBuilder.UseSqlServer("data base connection string");
}
protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)
{
}
public virtual DbSet<AdminMemberLoginResult> AdminMemberLogin { get; set; }
//public virtual DbSet<DefaultStatisticsResult> DefaultStatistics { get; set; }
}
Snippet of procedure call:
var loginResult = _dbContext.Set<AdminMemberLoginResult>()
.FromSql("exec Game.dbo.sp_admin_getAdminMemberLogin #p_id, #p_pwd",
new SqlParameter("#p_id", id),
new SqlParameter("#p_pwd",pwd)).AsNoTracking().SingleOrDefault();
Key attribute error screenshot:
How can I use FromSql method without Key attribute setting in my data model?
This question is over a year old, but there didn't seem to be a lot of answers out there.
I Just ran across the same issue and I was able to solve this by changing the DbSet to DbQuery in the DbContext.
This is using dot net core 2.1. There are a couple of different approaches that you can read about here: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/mt847184.aspx

AutoMapper mapping base class and projection

How do I map this:
public class Domain_1
{
public DomainType DomainType { get; set; }
public Domain_2 Domain2 { get; set; }
public Domain_3 Domain3 { get; set; }
}
to:
public abstract class DTOBase
{
// properties from Domain_1
}
public class DTO_1 : DTOBase
{
// properties from Domain_2
}
public class DTO_2 : DTOBase
{
// properties from Domain_3
}
Ideally,the Domain design should be same as the DTO but I can't due to EF6 and existing database restrictions.
Currently what I have right now is:
this.CreateMap<Domain_1, DTOBase>()
.ConstructUsing(SomeDTOCreatorFactoryMethod);
this.CreateMap<Domain_2, DTO_1>();
What SomeDTOCreatorFactoryMethod does is it creates the DTO based on the DomainType.
This works fine but I wanted to do some projection something like:
var domain_Db = dbContext.Domain1.Where(d => d.Id == 1).ProjectTo<DTOBase>.SingleOrDefault();
// var result = _mapper.Map<Domain1, DTOBase>(domain_Db);
Its throwing an error that cannot instantiate an abstract class. I understand the error but how I can use the factory method in order to create the DTO?
And what if I have to use a custom resolver on certain properties? I know this is not supported but is there a workaround?

Does this violate the DRY principle?

I have 3 domain models - Item, ItemProductLine, and ProductLine. Each of these map to already existing database tables. I also have a view model that I use in my view.
Domain models:
public class Item
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public string itemDescription { get; set; }
public float unitPrice { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
}
public class ItemProductLine
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public String productLineId { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ProductLine productLine { get; set; }
}
public class ProductLine
{
public string productLineId { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
// more fields
}
View model:
public class ItemViewModel
{
public string itemNumber { get; set; }
public String itemDescription { get; set; }
public Double unitPrice { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
}
My current query is:
from item in dbContext.Items
where unitPrice > 10
select new ItemViewModel()
{
itemNumber = item.itemNumber
itemDescription = item.itemDescription
unitPrice = item.unitPrice
productLine = item.itemProductLine.productLine.productLine
}
I currently have this query in the controller, but I am refactoring the code. I want to put the query code in a repository class in a data access layer. From what I've read, I should not reference any view models in that layer. If I change select new ItemViewModel() to select new Item(), it will return the error:
The entity or complex type 'proj.DAL.Item' cannot be constructed in a LINQ to Entities query.
A solution I have seen is to create a data transfer object (DTO) to transfer data from my domain model to my view model.
However, by doing this, I would have 3 copies of the data. If I need to add another database field and display it, I need to update 3 files. I believe I am violating the DRY principle. Is it inevitable to violate the DRY principle when using DTOs and view models? If not, can you provide an example of how to refactor this to have DRY code?
Having multiple models is not a DRY violation however your code breaks the Separation of Concerns principle because the domain model is the same with (or built upon, read: coupled to) persistence model. You should keep your models separated for each layer and use a tool like automapper to map them. This prevents the model to serve more than one purpose.
It looks like repeating yourself, but in fact you are keeping your layers decoupled and ensuring code maintainability.
Unlike ramiramulu, I would refrain from introducing too many abstractions.
If you use EF, your DAL is actually Entity Framework, no need to abstract that. A lot of people attempts to do this but this only complicates your code a lot, for no gain. If you were doing SQL requests and calling stored procedures directly, then a DAL would be helpful, but building an abstraction on top of EF (which is another abstraction, or over NHibernate) is a bad idea.
Also, pure DTOs as an abstraction are more and more frown upon, but they can be used if you have a middleware and do not directly access the database - for example, a message bus like NServiceBus: messages would be considered DTOs in that case.
Unless you do very simple and pure CRUD (in which case, go ahead, put the logic in controllers - no reason to add complexity for pretty straightforward business), you should move business logic outside of your controllers for sure. For this you have many options, but 2 of the most popular are : a rich domain model with domain driven design or rich business services with service oriented design. They are a lot of ways to do this, but these 2 illustrates very different approaches.
Rich Domain (Controller per Aggregate)
In the first case, your controller would be responsible for acquiring the domain object, calling the logic, and returning a View Model. They do the bridge between the View world and the Model world. How to acquire the domain object(s) needs to be somewhat abstracted, often simple virtual methods works great - keep it simple.
Aggregate Root:
public class Item
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public string itemDescription { get; set; }
public float unitPrice { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
// Example of logic, should always be in your aggregate and not in ItemProductLine for example
public void UpdatePrice(float newPrice)
{
// ... Implement logic
}
}
View Model:
public class ItemViewModel
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string itemNumber { get; set; }
public String itemDescription { get; set; }
public Double unitPrice { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
}
Controller:
public class ItemController : Controller
{
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
var item = GetById(id);
// Some logic to map to the VM, maybe automapper, valueinjector, etc.
var model = item.MapTo<ItemViewModel>();
return View(model);
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(int id, ItemViewModel model)
{
// Do some validation
if (!model.IsValid)
{
View("Edit", model); // return edit view
}
var item = GetById(model.id);
// Execute logic
item.UpdatePrice(model.unitPrice);
// ... maybe more logic calls
Save(item);
return RedirectToAction("Edit");
}
public virtual Item GetById(int id)
{
return dbContext.Items.Find(id);
}
public virtual bool Save(Item item)
{
// probably could/should be abstracted in a Unit of Work
dbContext.Items.Update(item);
dbContext.Save();
}
}
This works great with logic that trickles down and are very model specific. It is also great when you do not use CRUD and are very action-based (e.g. a button to update only the price compared to an edit page where you can change all item values). It is pretty decoupled and the separation of concerns is there - you can edit and test business logic on their own, you can test controllers without a backend (by overriding the virtual functions), and you do not have hundreds of abstractions built on one another. You might roll out the virtual function in a repository class, but by experience you always have very specific filters and concerns that are controller/view dependent, and often you end up with one controller per aggregate root, so controllers are a good place for them (e.g. .GetAllItemsWithAPriceGreaterThan(10.0))
In an architecture like that, you have to be careful about boundaries. For example, you could have a Product controller/aggregate and want to list all Items related to that product, but it should be read-only - you couldn't call any business on Items from Products - you need to navigate to the Item controller for that. The best way to do this is to automatically map to the ViewModel :
public class ProductController : Controller
{
// ...
public virtual IEnumerable<ItemViewModel> GetItemsByProductId(int id)
{
return dbContext.Items
.Where(x => ...)
.Select(x => x.MapTo<ItemViewModel>())
.ToList();
// No risks of editing Items
}
}
Rich Services (Controller per Service)
With rich services, you build a more service oriented abstraction. This is great when business logic spawns multiple boundaries and models. Services play the role of the bridge between the View and the Model. They should NEVER expose the underlying Models, only specific ViewModels (which play the role of DTO in that case). This is very good when you have a MVC site and some REST WebApi working on the same dataset for example, they can reuse the same services.
Model:
public class Item
{
public string itemId { get; set; }
public string itemDescription { get; set; }
public float unitPrice { get; set; }
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
}
View Model:
public class ItemViewModel
{
public int id { get; set; }
public string itemNumber { get; set; }
public String itemDescription { get; set; }
public Double unitPrice { get; set; }
public string productLine { get; set; }
}
Service:
public class ItemService
{
public ItemViewModel Load(int id)
{
return dbContext.Items.Find(id).MapTo<ItemViewModel>();
}
public bool Update(ItemViewModel model)
{
var item = dbContext.Items.Find(model.id);
// update item with model and check rules/validate
// ...
if (valid)
{
dbContext.Items.Update(item);
dbContext.Save();
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
Controller:
public class ItemController : Controller
{
public ItemService Service { get; private set; }
public ItemController(ItemService service)
{
this.Service = service;
}
[HttpGet]
public ActionResult Edit(int id)
{
return View(Service.Load(id));
}
[HttpPost]
public ActionResult Update(int id, ItemViewModel model)
{
// Do some validation and update
if (!model.IsValid || !Service.Update(model))
{
View("Edit", model); // return edit view
}
return RedirectToAction("Edit");
}
}
Controllers are only there to call the Service(s) and compose the results for the Views. They are "dumb" compared to domain oriented controllers, but if you have a lot of views complexities (tons of composed views, ajax, complex validation, json/xml processing along side html, etc.), this is the preferred approach.
Also, in this case, services do not have to related to only one model. The same service could manipulate multiple model types if they share business logic. So an OrderService could access the inventory and make adjustments there, etc. They are more process-based than model-based.
I would do it this way -
My Domain Model -
public class Item
{
// more fields
public virtual ItemProductLine itemProductLine { get; set; }
}
public class ItemProductLine : ProductLine
{
// more fields
}
public class ProductLine
{
// more fields
}
DAL Would be -
public class ItemRepository
{
public Item Fetch(int id)
{
// Get Data from Database into Item Model
}
}
BAL would be -
public class ItemBusinessLayer
{
public Item GetItem(int id)
{
// Do business logic here
DAL.Fetch(10);
}
}
Controller would be -
public class ItemController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index(int id)
{
Item _item = BAL.GetItem(10);
ItemViewModel _itemViewModel = AutomapperExt.Convert(_item); // something where automapper will be invoked for conversion process
return View(_itemViewModel);
}
}
Automapper will be maintained in a separate class library.
The main reason why I choose this way is that, for a particular business there can be any number of applications/frontends, but their business domain models shouldn't change. So my BAL is not going to change. It returns business domains itself. Thats doesn't mean everytime I need to return Item model, instead I will have MainItemModel, MiniItemModel etc., all these models will server business requirements.
Now it is the responsibility of frontend (probably controllers) to decide which BAL method to be invoked and how much data to be used on frontend.
Now some devs might argue, that UI shouldn't be having that judgement capacity to decide how much data to use and what data to see, instead BAL should have that power to make decision. I agree and that happens in BAL itself if our domain model is strong and flexible. If security is main constraint and domain models are very rugged, then we can have the automapper conversion at BAL itself. Or else simply have it on UI side. End of the day, MVC is all about making code more manageable, cleaner, reusable and comfortable.

ASP.NET MVC service layer input output data

I'm following the repository pattern with service layers in my project.
For each view I'm going to create a viewmodel.
What I'm confused is that, should the service layer directly access domain objects and returns them to the controller, or should I use DTOs. If I should use DTOs, where to put them in the project architecture?
Thank you.
Service layer is responsible for mapping (converting) Dto objects and Domain objects by implementing proper business logic.
Your DTO objects should be used in controllers and services.
DTO's are transfered between Controller and Service, on the other hand Domain objects are transfered between Service and Repository
Controller does not know about Domain and Repository does not know about DTO. Service knows both DTO and Domain and converts them each other with business rules like a car between driver and road, like stackoverflow between you and me, like everything, abstraction...
Following code is an example. Consider each namespace is a package.
namespace Controllers
{
using Services;
using DataTransferObjects;
public class CoffeeController
{
public ICoffeeService CoffeeService { get; set; }
public JsonResult GetCoffee(GetCoffeeInDto inDto)
{
var result = CoffeeService.GetCoffee(inDto);
return JsonResult(result);
}
public JsonResult SaveCoffee(SaveCoffeeInDto inDto)
{
var outDto = CoffeeService.SaveCoffee(inDto);
return JsonResult(outDto);
}
}
}
namespace Services
{
using DataTransferObjects;
public interface ICoffeeService
{
GetCoffeeOutDto GetCoffee(GetCoffeeInDto inDto);
SaveCoffeeOutDto SaveCoffee(SaveCoffeeInDto inDto);
}
}
namespace Services.Impl
{
using Services;
using Repository;
using DataTransferObjects;
using Domain;
public class CoffeeService : ICoffeeService
{
public ICoffeeRepository CoffeeRepository { get; set; }
public GetCoffeeOutDto GetCoffee(GetCoffeeInDto inDto)
{
var entity = CoffeeRepository.Get(inDto.Id);
return new GetCoffeeOutDto {Id = entity.Id, Name = entity.Name};
}
public SaveCoffeeOutDto SaveCoffee(SaveCoffeeInDto inDto)
{
var entity = new CoffeeEntity {Name = inDto.Name};
CoffeeRepository.Save(entity);
return new SaveCoffeeOutDto {Id = entity.Id};
}
}
}
namespace Repository
{
using Domain;
public interface ICoffeeRepository
{
CoffeeEntity Get(int id);
void Save(CoffeeEntity coffeeEntity);
}
}
namespace Repository.Impl
{
using Repository;
using Domain;
public class CoffeeRepository:ICoffeeRepository
{
public CoffeeEntity Get(int id)
{
//get entity from db
throw new System.NotImplementedException();
}
public void Save(CoffeeEntity coffeeEntity)
{
//insert entity into db
throw new System.NotImplementedException();
}
}
}
namespace DataTransferObjects
{
public class SaveCoffeeInDto
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
public class SaveCoffeeOutDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class GetCoffeeInDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
}
public class GetCoffeeOutDto
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
}
namespace Domain
{
public class CoffeeEntity
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
}

How to connect Controller to Service layer to Repository layer

Lets say I have the following entities that map to database tables (every matching property name can be considered a PK/FK relationship):
public class Person
{
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public string FirstName { get; set; }
public string LastName { get; set; }
}
public class Employee
{
public int EmployeeID { get; set; }
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public int Salary { get; set; }
}
public class Executive
{
public int ExecutiveID { get; set; }
public int EmployeeID { get; set; }
public string OfficeNumber { get; set; }
}
public class Contact
{
public int ContactID { get; set; }
public int PersonID { get; set; }
public string PhoneNumber { get; set; }
}
My architecture is as follows: Controller calls Service layer which calls Repository layer.
I have a View called AddExecutive that collects the following information: FirstName, LastName, PhoneNumber, Salary, and OfficeNumber.
What is the best way to commit this data given my architecture? I am thinking I that I would post up a ViewModel that contains all the information I collected and pass it off to a Service method AddExecutive(AddExecutiveViewModel addExecutiveViewModel), then within the Service method I would create new instances of Person, Employee, Executive, and Contact and attach them to each other (Person object) and pass ALL the data off to a Repository method AddExecutive(Person person). The Repository method would then simply commit the data. Does that sound right? What would be a better solution?
So long as you maintain separation of concerns you good.
Controller: Binds data to service / model
Service: Enforces Business Logic, hands persistence to Repo
Repo: performs ACID transactions and queries.
If your viewmodel is decoupled from any sort of framework concerns (i.e.: a POCO) You should be good since you maintain testability.
When you talk about committing data, you're talking about a unit of work. So start there:
public ActionResult AddExecutive(AddExecutiveViewModel addExecutiveViewModel)
{
// simplified; no error handling
using (var uow = new UnitOfWork()) // or use constructor injection on the controller...
{
// ???
uow.Commit();
}
return RedirectToAction(// ...
}
Now your services come out of the unit of work (because both the unit of work and the repositories share an ObjectContext in the background; ObjectContext is the EF's "native" unit of work). So we can fill in the // ???:
public ActionResult AddExecutive(AddExecutiveViewModel model)
{
// simplified; no error handling
using (var uow = new UnitOfWork()) // or use constructor injection on the controller...
{
uow.EmployeeService.AddExecutive(model);
uow.Commit();
}
return RedirectToAction(// ...
}
uow.Commit() is a thin shell around ObjectContext.SaveChanges(). The unit of work is injected with the same ObjectContext as the repositories. The services are EF-ignorant.
For a working (albeit in an early stage) example, see my open source repository/service project, Halfpipe.

Resources