Firstly let me say that I might go down the wrong road with this but can't get my head around how to get this to work.
What I'm trying to achieve is to call my service layer, to execute some functions, after I insert/update/delete database entries.
My initial thoughts was to inject my service into my context but not sure if this is possible, or wise for that matter.
This is my context where I inject the service "serviceBus":
public interface IPCContext
{ }
public class PCContext : IdentityDbContext<User>, IPCContext
{
private readonly IClientBusServices _serviceBus;
public PCContext(IClientBusServices serviceBus)
: base("PayComplimentContext")
{
Database.SetInitializer(new MigrateDatabaseToLatestVersion<PCContext, Configuration>());
_serviceBus = serviceBus;
}
public override int SaveChanges()
{
var count = base.SaveChanges();
_serviceBus.SyncDw.Value.SyncDw(1, "Feedback", 1);
return count;
}
}
And to register the "serviceBus" I use Autofac like this:
class ClientBusModule : Module
{
protected override void Load(ContainerBuilder builder)
{
builder.RegisterAssemblyTypes(ThisAssembly)
.Where(t => t.Name.EndsWith("Service"))
.AsImplementedInterfaces();
builder.RegisterAggregateService<IClientBusServices>();
builder.RegisterType<ClientSearchIndexService>().As<IClientSearchIndexService>().InstancePerLifetimeScope();
builder.RegisterType<ClientSyncDataWarehouseService>().As<IClientSyncDataWarehouseService>().InstancePerLifetimeScope();
}
}
I use dependency injection in other parts of my application which is working fine but not when I use it in my context. The error I get is:
The target context 'PayCompliment.Data.DbContexts.PCContext' is not constructible. Add a default constructor or provide an implementation of IDbContextFactory.
Am I approaching this the wrong way? Any thoughts or comments are much appreciated.
It's an MVC website using EF6 code first.
Related
I can make it work, but I want to know what the best practice is and why. I have a Controller, a Model, and a Repository and now I want to Unit Test the Controller. I am just writing a simple test to ensure that the correct view is being returned.
This is my method in the controller:
public ActionResult Selections(SelectionsViewModel model)
{
for (int i = 0; i < model.Sends.Count; i++)
{
Send send = new Send(new SendService(new Database().GetConnectionString()))
{
SendID = model.Sends[i].SendID,
Title = model.Sends[i].Title,
Subject = model.Sends[i].Subject,
SentDate = model.Sends[i].SentDate,
TimesViewed = model.Sends[i].TimesViewed,
Include = model.Sends[i].Include,
Exclude = model.Sends[i].Exclude
};
send.UpdateIncludeExclude();
}
return View(model);
}
Here is my GetConnectionString() method in the Database class that is being sent via my SendService constructor.
public string GetConnectionString()
{
return System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager.ConnectionStrings["DEVConnectionString"].ToString();
}
And lastly, my unit test:
[Test]
public void TestAssignmentSelections()
{
var obj = new AssignmentController();
var actResult = obj.Selections() as ViewResult;
NUnit.Framework.Assert.That(actResult.ViewName, Is.EqualTo("Selections"));
}
Now, my unit test fails, and I get why. My unit test project has no access to the web.config of the project I am testing where my connection string resides.
I've done some research, and apparently just adding a web.config to my unit test project and putting the connection string in there as well will make it work.. but that seems like a hack.
What's the best way to go about this? Is there another way to write my code to accommodate for this?
You want to make your controller unit testable ? Don't do this.
new SendService(
With this code,you are hardcoding your concrete service implementation & your data access code implementation. In your unit test, you should not be really accessing the data from your database. Instead you should be providing a mock data access implementation.
Here comes interfaces, you need to create an interface for your SendService.
public interface ISendService
{
void SomeMethod();
}
now your SendService will be a concrete implementation of this interface
public class SendService : ISendService
{
public void SomeMethod()
{
// Do something
}
}
Now update your controller to have a constructor where we will inject an implementation of ISendService.
public class YourController : Controller
{
private ISendService sendService;
public YourController(ISendService sendService)
{
this.sendService = sendService;
}
public ActionResult YourActionMethod()
{
// use this.sendService.SomeMethod();
}
}
And you may use some dependency injection frameworks to tell the MVC framework which implementation of the interface to use when the code runs. If you are using MVC6,It has an inbuilt dependency injection provider you can use. So go to your Startup class and in your ConfigureServices method, you can map an interface to a concrete implementation.
public class Startup
{
public void ConfigureServices(IServiceCollection services)
{
services.AddTransient<ISendService, SendService>();
}
}
If you are in a previous version of MVC, You may consider DI frameworks like Unity,Ninject etc. You can do the same approach for your Data access later / Service layers. ie: Create an interface for data access and inject that to your SendService.
public Interface IDataAccess
{
string GetName(int id);
}
and an implementation which uses your specific data access code/ORM
public class EFDataAccess : IDataAccess
{
public string GetName(int id)
{
// return a string from db using EF
}
}
So now your Service class will be
public class SendService : ISendService
{
private IDataAccess dataAccess;
public SendService(IDataAccess dataAccess)
{
this.dataAccess=dataAccess;
}
// to do : Implement methods of your ISendService interface.
// you may use this.dataAccess in those methods as needed.
}
In your unit tests, you can create a mock implementation of your interfaces which returns static data instead of accessing the database.
For example, If you are using Moq mocking framework, you can do this.
var m = new Mock<IDataAccess>();
var m.Setup(s=>s.GetName(It.IsAny<int>())).Returns("Test");
var s = new SendService(m);
var result= s.SomeMethod();
I am creating an application with ASP.NET MVC and Entity framework code first. I am using repository and unit of work pattern with influence of from following link.
http://www.asp.net/mvc/tutorials/getting-started-with-ef-5-using-mvc-4/implementing-the-repository-and-unit-of-work-patterns-in-an-asp-net-mvc-application
Here I have question about the implementation of Unit Of Work in that link unit of work is implemented via directly writing entities in class itself like.
public class UnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
private SchoolContext context = new SchoolContext();
private GenericRepository<Department> departmentRepository;
public GenericRepository<Department> DepartmentRepository
{
get
{
if (this.departmentRepository == null)
{
this.departmentRepository = new GenericRepository<Department>(context);
}
return departmentRepository;
}
}
}
Do you think that implementation is good enough because every time I add/remove entities I need to change my Unit of work class. I believe that Unit of work should not be dependent on entities. Because in my application based on Client feedback we are going to frequently add/remove entities.
I may sound stupid but let me know your views on that.
The Unit of Work pattern is already implemented in Entity Framework.
The DbContext is your Unit of Work.
Each IDbSet is a Repository.
using (var context = new SchoolContext()) // instantiate our Unit of Work
{
var department = context.Departments.Find(id);
}
There are a few flavors of the UnitOfWorkPattern. The one you are describing is a show everything, there is a hide everything approach as well. In the hide approach the unit of work references the DbContext.SaveChanges() method and nothing else; sounds like what you want.
public YourContext : DbContext, IContext{}
public interface IUnitOfWork{
void Commit();
}
public UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork{
private readonly IContext _context;
//IOC should always inject the same instance of this, register it accordingly
public UnitOfWork(IContext context){
_context = context;
}
void Commit(){
// try catch the validation exception if you want to return the validations this
// way if your confident you've already validated you can put a void here or
// return the intfrom save changes make sure you handle the disposing properly,
// not going into that here you also may be doing other stuff here, have multiple
// "contexts" to save in a single transaction or we have contextProcessors that
// do stuff based on items in the context
_context.SaveChanges();
}
}
This leaves the issue of how you get your repositories into the classes that need them if you are not taking them from the UnitOfWork. This is best handled by an IOC framework. Again here there are a couple options. Once is to register the UnitOfWork as a single instance per request and have it injected into your custom Repository class.
public interface IRepository<T>
{
IQueryable<T> Records();
//other methods go here
}
public Repository : IRepository<T>
{
private IContext _context;
// same instance of context injected into the unit of work, this why when you Commit
// everything will save, this can get tricky if you start adding Add, Update and stuff
// but EF does have the support needed.
public Repository(IContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public Records()
{
return _context.Set<T>();
}
}
public class SomeService : ISomeService{
private readonly _myObjectRepository;
public SomeService(IRepository<MyObject> myObjectRepository){
_myObjectRepository = myObjectRepository;
}
}
Personally I consider the IDbSet an sufficient abstraction so I no longer create repositories. In
order to inject the IDbSets from the context though you need to register them as instances that you
extract from the context in your IOC setup. This can be complex and depending on your skills you
could find yourself in the situation where you have to register each IDbSet which I know you are trying to avoid.
What's nice about using the IDbSet is you have access to simple methods like Add and can avoid some of the more complex parts of working with Entity and DbEntity in a generic sense.
public class SomeService : ISomeService {
private readonly _myObjectSet;
// requires specialized IOC configurations because you have to pull this instance from
// the instance of the context, personally don't know how to do this with a single
// registration so this has the same problem as having to add each new repository to the
// unit of work. In this case each new Entity I add to the context requires I add an IOC
// registration for the type.
public SomeService(IDbSet<MyObject> myObjectSet){
_myObjectSet= myObjectSet;
}
}
Try passing the SchoolContext to the GenericRepository:
public GenericRepository<T>
{
private SchoolContext _context;
public GenericRepository(SchoolContext context)
{
_context = context;
}
public Get(int id)
{
return _context.Set<T>().Find(id);
}
}
And use:
using(var context = new SchoolContext())
{
var departmentRepository = new GenericRepository<Department>(context);
var department = departmentRepository.Get(1);
}
I'm fairly new to Dependency Injection, and I'm looking for some advice on best practices. Sorry if this has been asked before, but I haven't been able to find a good solution yet.
Assume I have a MVC4 web app and a separate business layer. The MVC app is already set up using the Ninject NuGet package, so I have NinjectWebCommon, and it works fine.
My question is: How can I use Ninject when I need dependencies set up in other layers?
Assume I have this repository:
public class WidgetRepository : IWidgetRepository
{
// using an entity framework db context.
WidgetDbContext context = new WidgetDbContext();
public IQueryable<Widget> Widgets
{
get
{
return context.Widgets;
}
}
}
Each widget returned by the repository needs to perform calculations using a calculator object that I need to inject:
public class Widget
{
// how can I get Ninject to inject a calculator object
// when Widgets are loaded form the database?
public ICalculator calculator;
public int MyValue { get; set; }
public int CalculateSomething
{
get
{
return calculator.Calculate(MyValue);
}
}
}
What is the best practice to inject an ICalculator into each Widget instance, when Ninject is set up in the MVC web app, but the Widget objects are created in the business layer??
Prevent doing constructor injection or property injection in entities. You should either:
Let the service layer call the calculation on the Widget, like this:
var widget = this.repository.GetById(wigditId);
var value = this.calculator.Calculate(widget.MyValue);
Or use constructor injection into your entities:
var widget = this.repository.GetById(wigditId);
var value = widget.CalculateSomething(this.calculator);
A lot has been written about this. Take a look at these articles for instance:
How not to inject services in entities
Why not use an IoC container to resolve dependencies for entities/business objects?
If Widget and ICalculator are in the same project, just use constructor injection:
public class Widget
{
public Widget(ICalculator calculator)
{
_calculator = calculator;
}
private ICalculator _calculator;
public int MyValue { get; set; }
public int CalculateSomething
{
get
{
return _calculator.Calculate(MyValue);
}
}
}
In NinjectWebCommon, you'll need to register your ICalculator implementation, something like this:
private static void RegisterServices(IKernel kernel)
{
kernel.Bind<ICalculator>()
.To<Calculator>();
}
I have this really basic code in a MVC controller action. It maps an Operation model class to a very basic OperationVM view-model class .
public class OperationVM: Operation
{
public CategoryVM CategoryVM { get; set; }
}
I need to load the complete list of categories in order to create a CategoryVM instance.
Here's how I (try to) create a List<OperationVM> to show in the view.
public class OperationsController : Controller {
private SomeContext context = new SomeContext ();
public ViewResult Index()
{
var ops = context.Operations.Include("blah...").ToList();
Mapper.CreateMap<Operation, OperationVM>()
.ForMember(
dest => dest.CategoryVM,
opt => opt.MapFrom(
src => CreateCatVM(src.Category, context.Categories)
// trouble here ----------------^^^^^^^
)
);
var opVMs = ops.Select(op => Mapper.Map<Operation, OperationVM>(op))
.ToList();
return View(opVMs);
}
}
All works great first time I hit the page. The problem is, the mapper object is static. So when calling Mapper.CreateMap(), the instance of the current DbContext is saved in the closure given to CreateMap().
The 2nd time I hit the page, the static map is already in place, still using the reference to the initial, now disposed, DbContext.
The exact error is:
The operation cannot be completed because the DbContext has been disposed.
The question is: How can I make AutoMapper always use the current context instead of the initial one?
Is there a way to use an "instance" of automapper instead of the static Mapper class?
If this is possible, is it recommended to re-create the mapping every time? I'm worried about reflection slow-downs.
I read a bit about custom resolvers, but I get a similar problem - How do I get the custom resolver to use the current context?
It is possible, but the setup is a bit complicated. I use this in my projects with help of Ninject for dependency injection.
AutoMapper has concept of TypeConverters. Converters provide a way to implement complex operations required to convert certain types in a separate class. If converting Category to CategoryVM requires a database lookup you can implement that logic in custom TypeConverter class similar to this:
using System;
using AutoMapper;
public class CategoryToCategoryVMConverter :
TypeConverter<Category, CategoryVM>
{
public CategoryToCategoryVMConverter(DbContext context)
{
this.Context = context;
}
private DbContext Context { get; set; }
protected override CategoryVM ConvertCore(Category source)
{
// use this.Context to lookup whatever you need
return CreateCatVM(source, this.Context.Categories);
}
}
You then to configure AutoMapper to use your converter:
Mapper.CreateMap<Category, CategoryVM>().ConvertUsing<CategoryToCategoryVMConverter>();
Here comes the tricky part. AutoMapper will need to create a new instance of our converter every time you map values, and it will need to provide DbContext instance for constructor. In my projects I use Ninject for dependency injection, and it is configured to use the same instance of DbContext while processing a request. This way the same instance of DbContext is injected both in your controller and in your AutoMapper converter. The trivial Ninject configuration would look like this:
Bind<DbContext>().To<SomeContext>().InRequestScope();
You can of course use some sort of factory pattern to get instance of DbContext instead of injecting it in constructors.
Let me know if you have any questions.
I've found a workaround that's not completely hacky.
Basically, I tell AutoMapper to ignore the tricky field and I update it myself.
The updated controller looks like this:
public class OperationsController : Controller {
private SomeContext context = new SomeContext ();
public ViewResult Index()
{
var ops = context.Operations.Include("blah...").ToList();
Mapper.CreateMap<Operation, OperationVM>()
.ForMember(dest => dest.CategoryVM, opt => opt.Ignore());
var opVMs = ops.Select(
op => {
var opVM = Mapper.Map<Operation, OperationVM>(op);
opVM.CategoryVM = CreateCatVM(op.Category, context.Categories);
return opVM;
})
.ToList();
return View(opVMs);
}
}
Still curious how this could be done from within AutoMapper...
The answer from #LeffeBrune is perfect. However, I want to have the same behavior, but I don't want to map every property myself. Basically I just wanted to override the "ConstructUsing".
Here is what I came up with.
public static class AutoMapperExtension
{
public static void ConstructUsingService<TSource, TDestination>(this IMappingExpression<TSource, TDestination> mappingExression, Type typeConverterType)
{
mappingExression.ConstructUsing((ResolutionContext ctx) =>
{
var constructor = (IConstructorWithService<TSource, TDestination>)ctx.Options.ServiceCtor.Invoke(typeConverterType);
return constructor.Construct((TSource)ctx.SourceValue);
});
}
}
public class CategoryToCategoryVMConstructor : IConstructorWithService<Category, CategoryVM>
{
private DbContext dbContext;
public DTOSiteToHBTISiteConverter(DbContext dbContext)
{
this.dbContext = dbContext;
}
public CategoryVM Construct(Category category)
{
// Some commands here
if (category.Id > 0)
{
var vmCategory = dbContext.Categories.FirstOrDefault(m => m.Id == category.Id);
if (vmCategory == null)
{
throw new NotAllowedException();
}
return vmCategory;
}
return new CategoryVM();
}
}
// Initialization
Mapper.Initialize(cfg =>
{
cfg.ConstructServicesUsing(type => nInjectKernelForInstance.Get(type));
cfg.CreateMap<Category, CategoryVM>().ConstructUsingService(typeof(CategoryToCategoryVMConstructor));
};
I have an application using ASP.NET MVC, Unity, and Linq to SQL.
The unity container registers the type AcmeDataContext which inherits from System.Data.Linq.DataContext, with a LifetimeManager using HttpContext.
There is a controller factory which gets the controller instances using the unity container. I set-up all my dependencies on the constructors, like this:
// Initialize a new instance of the EmployeeController class
public EmployeeController(IEmployeeService service)
// Initializes a new instance of the EmployeeService class
public EmployeeService(IEmployeeRepository repository) : IEmployeeService
// Initialize a new instance of the EmployeeRepository class
public EmployeeRepository(AcmeDataContext dataContext) : IEmployeeRepository
Whenever a constructor is needed, the unity container resolves a connection, which is used to resolve a data context, then a repository, then a service, and finally the controller.
The issue is that IEmployeeRepository exposes the SubmitChanges method, since the service classes DO NOT have a DataContext reference.
I have been told that the unit of work should be managed from outside the repositories, so it would seem I ought to remove SubmitChanges from my repositories. Why is that?
If this is true, does this mean that I have to declare an IUnitOfWork interface and make every service class dependent upon it? How else can I allow my service classes to manage the unit of work?
You shouldn't try to supply the AcmeDataContext itself to the EmployeeRepository. I would even turn the whole thing around:
Define a factory that allows creating a new unit of work for the Acme domain:
Create an abstract AcmeUnitOfWork that abstracts away LINQ to SQL.
Create a concrete factory that can allows creating new LINQ to SQL unit of works.
Register that concrete factory in your DI configuration.
Implement an InMemoryAcmeUnitOfWork for unit testing.
Optionally implement convenient extension methods for common operations on your IQueryable<T> repositories.
UPDATE: I wrote a blog post on this subject: Faking your LINQ provider.
Below is a step-by-step with examples:
WARNING: This will be a loooong post.
Step 1: Defining the factory:
public interface IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory
{
AcmeUnitOfWork CreateNew();
}
Creating a factory is important, because the DataContext implement IDisposable so you want to have ownership over the instance. While some frameworks allow you to dispose objects when not needed anymore, factories make this very explicit.
Step 2: Creating an abstract unit of work for the Acme domain:
public abstract class AcmeUnitOfWork : IDisposable
{
public IQueryable<Employee> Employees
{
[DebuggerStepThrough]
get { return this.GetRepository<Employee>(); }
}
public IQueryable<Order> Orders
{
[DebuggerStepThrough]
get { return this.GetRepository<Order>(); }
}
public abstract void Insert(object entity);
public abstract void Delete(object entity);
public abstract void SubmitChanges();
public void Dispose()
{
this.Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
protected abstract IQueryable<T> GetRepository<T>()
where T : class;
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { }
}
There are some interesting things to note about this abstract class. The Unit of Work controls and creates the Repositories. A repository is basically something that implements IQueryable<T>. The repository implements properties that return a specific repository. This prevents users from calling uow.GetRepository<Employee>() and this creates a model that is very close to what you are already doing with LINQ to SQL or Entity Framework.
The unit of work implements Insert and Delete operations. In LINQ to SQL these operations are placed on the Table<T> classes, but when you try to implement it this way it will prevent you from abstracting LINQ to SQL away.
Step 3. Create a concrete factory:
public class LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory : IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory
{
private static readonly MappingSource Mapping =
new AttributeMappingSource();
public string AcmeConnectionString { get; set; }
public AcmeUnitOfWork CreateNew()
{
var context = new DataContext(this.AcmeConnectionString, Mapping);
return new LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWork(context);
}
}
The factory created a LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWork based on the AcmeUnitOfWork base class:
internal sealed class LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWork : AcmeUnitOfWork
{
private readonly DataContext db;
public LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWork(DataContext db) { this.db = db; }
public override void Insert(object entity)
{
if (entity == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
this.db.GetTable(entity.GetType()).InsertOnSubmit(entity);
}
public override void Delete(object entity)
{
if (entity == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("entity");
this.db.GetTable(entity.GetType()).DeleteOnSubmit(entity);
}
public override void SubmitChanges();
{
this.db.SubmitChanges();
}
protected override IQueryable<TEntity> GetRepository<TEntity>()
where TEntity : class
{
return this.db.GetTable<TEntity>();
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) { this.db.Dispose(); }
}
Step 4: Register that concrete factory in your DI configuration.
You know self best how to register the IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory interface to return an instance of the LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory, but it would look something like this:
container.RegisterSingle<IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory>(
new LinqToSqlAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory()
{
AcmeConnectionString =
AppSettings.ConnectionStrings["ACME"].ConnectionString
});
Now you can change the dependencies on the EmployeeService to use the IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory:
public class EmployeeService : IEmployeeService
{
public EmployeeService(IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory contextFactory) { ... }
public Employee[] GetAll()
{
using (var context = this.contextFactory.CreateNew())
{
// This just works like a real L2S DataObject.
return context.Employees.ToArray();
}
}
}
Note that you could even remove the IEmployeeService interface and let the controller use the EmployeeService directly. You don't need this interface for unit testing, because you can replace the unit of work during testing preventing the EmployeeService from accessing the database. This will probably also save you a lot of DI configuration, because most DI frameworks know how to instantiate a concrete class.
Step 5: Implement an InMemoryAcmeUnitOfWork for unit testing.
All these abstractions are there for a reason. Unit testing. Now let's create a AcmeUnitOfWork for unit testing purposes:
public class InMemoryAcmeUnitOfWork: AcmeUnitOfWork, IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory
{
private readonly List<object> committed = new List<object>();
private readonly List<object> uncommittedInserts = new List<object>();
private readonly List<object> uncommittedDeletes = new List<object>();
// This is a dirty trick. This UoW is also it's own factory.
// This makes writing unit tests easier.
AcmeUnitOfWork IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory.CreateNew() { return this; }
// Get a list with all committed objects of the requested type.
public IEnumerable<TEntity> Committed<TEntity>() where TEntity : class
{
return this.committed.OfType<TEntity>();
}
protected override IQueryable<TEntity> GetRepository<TEntity>()
{
// Only return committed objects. Same behavior as L2S and EF.
return this.committed.OfType<TEntity>().AsQueryable();
}
// Directly add an object to the 'database'. Useful during test setup.
public void AddCommitted(object entity)
{
this.committed.Add(entity);
}
public override void Insert(object entity)
{
this.uncommittedInserts.Add(entity);
}
public override void Delete(object entity)
{
if (!this.committed.Contains(entity))
Assert.Fail("Entity does not exist.");
this.uncommittedDeletes.Add(entity);
}
public override void SubmitChanges()
{
this.committed.AddRange(this.uncommittedInserts);
this.uncommittedInserts.Clear();
this.committed.RemoveAll(
e => this.uncommittedDeletes.Contains(e));
this.uncommittedDeletes.Clear();
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
}
}
You can use this class in your unit tests. For instance:
[TestMethod]
public void ControllerTest1()
{
// Arrange
var context = new InMemoryAcmeUnitOfWork();
var controller = new CreateValidController(context);
context.AddCommitted(new Employee()
{
Id = 6,
Name = ".NET Junkie"
});
// Act
controller.DoSomething();
// Assert
Assert.IsTrue(ExpectSomething);
}
private static EmployeeController CreateValidController(
IAcmeUnitOfWorkFactory factory)
{
return new EmployeeController(return new EmployeeService(factory));
}
Step 6: Optionally implement convenient extension methods:
Repositories are expected to have convenient methods such as GetById or GetByLastName. Of course IQueryable<T> is a generic interface and does not contains such methods. We could clutter our code with calls like context.Employees.Single(e => e.Id == employeeId), but that's really ugly. The perfect solution to this problem is: extension methods:
// Place this class in the same namespace as your LINQ to SQL entities.
public static class AcmeRepositoryExtensions
{
public static Employee GetById(this IQueryable<Employee> repository,int id)
{
return Single(repository.Where(entity => entity.Id == id), id);
}
public static Order GetById(this IQueryable<Order> repository, int id)
{
return Single(repository.Where(entity => entity.Id == id), id);
}
// This method allows reporting more descriptive error messages.
[DebuggerStepThrough]
private static TEntity Single<TEntity, TKey>(IQueryable<TEntity> query,
TKey key) where TEntity : class
{
try
{
return query.Single();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("There was an error " +
"getting a single element of type " + typeof(TEntity)
.FullName + " with key '" + key + "'. " + ex.Message, ex);
}
}
}
With these extension methods in place, it allows you to call those GetById and other methods from your code:
var employee = context.Employees.GetById(employeeId);
What the nicest thing is about this code (I use it in production) is that -once in place- it saves you from writing a lot of code for unit testing. You will find yourself adding methods to the AcmeRepositoryExtensions class and properties to the AcmeUnitOfWork class when new entities are added to the system, but you don't need to create new repository classes for production or testing.
This model has of course some shortcomes. The most important perhaps is that LINQ to SQL isn't abstract away completely, because you still use the LINQ to SQL generated entities. Those entity contain EntitySet<T> properties which are specific to LINQ to SQL. I haven't found them to be in the way of proper unit testing, so for me it's not a problem. If you want you can always use POCO objects with LINQ to SQL.
Another shortcome is that complicated LINQ queries can succeed in test but fail in production, because of limitations (or bugs) in the query provider (especially the EF 3.5 query provider sucks). When you do not use this model, you are probably writing custom repository classes that are completely replaced by unit test versions and you will still have the problem of not being able to test queries to your database in unit tests. For this you will need integration tests, wrapped by a transaction.
A last shortcome of this design is the use of Insert and Delete methods on the Unit of Work. While moving them to the repository would force you to have a design with an specific class IRepository<T> : IQueryable<T> interface, it prevents you from other errors. In the solution I use myself I also have InsertAll(IEnumerable) and DeleteAll(IEnumerable) methods. It is however easy to mistype this and write something like context.Delete(context.Messages) (note the use of Delete instead of DeleteAll). This would compile fine, because Delete accepts an object. A design with delete operations on the repository would prevent such statement from compiling, because the repositories are typed.
UPDATE: I wrote a blog post on this subject that describes this solution in even more detail: Faking your LINQ provider.
I hope this helps.
If combining unit of work and repository patterns, some people advocate that UoW should be managed outside of repository so that you could create two repositories (say, CustomerRepository and OrderRepository) and pass them the same UoW instance ensuring that all the changes to the DB will be done atomically when you finally call UoW.Complete().
In a mature DDD solution however, there should not be need for both UoW and a repository. This is because is such a solution aggregate boundaries are defined is such a way, that there is no need of atomic changes involving more than one repository.
Does this answer your question?