I have this legacy ASP.NET webapp that's mostly been transitioned to MVC. Code testability is generally bad, as it happens a lot to legacy apps: responsibilities are in a jumble, tight coupling prevails, that sort of thing.
I've been refactoring the app for a couple weeks to improve testability, doing my best to abide by SOLID, and I've come to this point where I need to pass HttpContext or HttpResponse and the like to a method in the HttpModule. Now, obviously the HttpModules can grab a copy of the HttpApplication and just pass that everywhere - which is how it is atm - but I would rather not grant access to such a large root object to a dependency.
Because some of our IHttpModules are initialized before the MVC even comes into play, I've had problems with using an IoC container to inject HttpContextBase or HttpResponseBase into constructors of various helpers that the modules use. I thus have to either pass the HttpContextBase to methods of said helpers - which is taxing to use and feels somewhat wrong - or create something like this:
public class HttpContextProvider : IHttpContextProvider {
// ... ctor
public HttpContextBase GetContext() { return HttpContext.Current; }
}
I would then inject an instance implementing IHttpContextProvider into a helper and call .GetContext() on it later as needed.
Intuitively, I feel like I might be doing something wrong, but cannot really get a handle on what it could be. This whole refactoring is complex enough - and the bus factor in the team is low enough - that I'm hesitant to request too much of the lead dev's time for this issue, which could almost be seen as academic from a practical standpoint.
I can suggest different options
try to register this objects in IoC, but to fix the problem (that class is initialized before it's dependences can be resolved) just use Lazy< T>, most IoC support them, check if yours is
Introducing providers as in your example, but I'll suggest it to return not HttpContext (or HttpResponse), but exactly what you need from this classes, it would be easier in tests to mock this behaviour (you maybe even don't need to construct context there at all) and also it will hide all complex stuff of HttpContext that isn't used
The second option will work only if you use this objects in similar way each time - so that you can replace it with 2-3 methods of ISmthProvider. If you use objects always differently maybe it will be better to combine both approaches and extract the most popular usages into some service and in other places path Lazy< HttpContextBase> to constructor
In my opinion it's better not to pass HttpContext/HttpResponse directly as it giving access for too much stuff and later people can make a mess of it (using it without thinking as it's already there) as a result it would be difficult to test and to make refactoring later.
Related
I am fairly new to Dependency Injection, and I wrote a great little app that worked exactly like Mark Seemann told me it would and the world was great. I even added some extra complexity to it just to see if I could handle that using DI. And I could, happy days.
Then I took it to a real world application and spent a long time scratching my head. Mark tells me that I am not allowed to use the 'new' keyword to instantiate objects, and I should instead let the IoC do this for me.
However, say that I have a repository and I want it to be able to return me a list of things, thusly:
public interface IThingRepository
{
public IEnumerable<IThing> GetThings();
}
Surely at least one implementation of this interface will have to instantiate some Thing's? And it doesn't seem so bad being allowing ThingRepository to new up some Things as they are related anyway.
I could instead pass round a POCO instead, but at some point I'm going to have to convert the POCO in to a business object, which would require me to new something up.
This situation seems to occur every time I want a number of things which is not knowable in the Composition Root (ie we only find out this information later - for example when querying the database).
Does anyone know what the best practice is in these kinds of situations?
In addition to Steven's answer, I think it is ok for a specific factory to new up it's specific matching-implementation that it was created for.
Update
Also, check this answer, specifically the comments, which say something about new-ing up instances.
Example:
public interface IContext {
T GetById<T>(int id);
}
public interface IContextFactory {
IContext Create();
}
public class EntityContext : DbContext, IContext {
public T GetById<T>(int id) {
var entity = ...; // Retrieve from db
return entity;
}
}
public class EntityContextFactory : IContextFactory {
public IContext Create() {
// I think this is ok, since the factory was specifically created
// to return the matching implementation of IContext.
return new EntityContext();
}
}
Mark tells me that I am not allowed to use the 'new' keyword to instantiate objects
That's not what Mark Seemann tells you, or what he means. You must make the clear separation between services (controlled by your composition root) at one side and primitives, entities, DTOs, view models and messages on the other side. Services are injectables and all other types are newables. You should only prevent using new on service types. It would be silly to prevent newing up strings for instance.
Since in your example the service is a repository, it seems reasonable to assume that the repository returns domain objects. Domain objects are newables and there's no reason not to new them manually.
Thanks for the answers everybody, they led me to the following conclusions.
Mark makes a distinction between stable and unstable dependencies in the book I am reading ( "Dependency injection in .NET"). Stable dependencies (eg Strings) can be created at will. Unstable dependencies should be moved behind a seam / interface.
A dependency is anything that is in a different assembly from the one that we are writing.
An unstable dependency is any of the following
It requires a run time environment to be set up such as a database, web server, maybe even the file system (otherwise it won't be extensible or testable, and it means we couldn't do late binding if we wanted to)
It doesn't exist yet (otherwise we can't do parallel development)
It requires something that isn't installed on all machines (otherwise it can cause test difficulties)
It contains non deterministic behaviour (otherwise impossible to test well)
So this is all well and good.
However, I often hide things behind seams within the same assembly. I find this extremely helpful for testing. For example if I am doing a complex calculation it is impossible to test the entire calculation well in one go. If I split the calculation up into lots of smaller classes and hide these behind seams, then I can easily inject any arbirtary intermediate results into a calculating class.
So, having had a good old think about it, these are my conclusions:
It is always OK to create a stable dependency
You should never create unstable dependencies directly
It can be useful to use seams within an assembly, particularly to break up big classes and make them more easily testable.
And in answer to my original question, it is ok to instatiate a concrete object from a concrete factory.
Something that has been bugging me since I read an answer on another stackoverflow question (the precise one eludes me now) where a user stated something like "If you're calling the Service Locator, you're doing it wrong."
It was someone with a high reputation (in the hundred thousands, I think) so I tend to think this person might know what they're talking about. I've been using DI for my projects since I first started learning about it and how well it relates to Unit Testing and what not. It's something I'm fairly comfortable with now and I think I know what I'm doing.
However, there are a lot of places where I've been using the Service Locator to resolve dependencies in my project. Once prime example comes from my ModelBinder implementations.
Example of a typical model binder.
public class FileModelBinder : IModelBinder {
public object BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext,
ModelBindingContext bindingContext) {
ValueProviderResult value = bindingContext.ValueProvider.GetValue("id");
IDataContext db = Services.Current.GetService<IDataContext>();
return db.Files.SingleOrDefault(i => i.Id == id.AttemptedValue);
}
}
not a real implementation - just a quick example
Since the ModelBinder implementation requires a new instance when a Binder is first requested, it's impossible to use Dependency Injection on the constructor for this particular implementation.
It's this way in a lot of my classes. Another example is that of a Cache Expiration process that runs a method whenever a cache object expires in my website. I run a bunch of database calls and what not. There too I'm using a Service Locator to get the required dependency.
Another issue I had recently (that I posted a question on here about) was that all my controllers required an instance of IDataContext which I used DI for - but one action method required a different instance of IDataContext. Luckily Ninject came to the rescue with a named dependency. However, this felt like a kludge and not a real solution.
I thought I, at least, understood the concept of Separation of Concerns reasonably well but there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with how I understand Dependency Injection and the Service Locator Pattern - and I don't know what that is.
The way I currently understand it - and this could be wrong as well - is that, at least in MVC, the ControllerFactory looks for a Constructor for a Controller and calls the Service Locator itself to get the required dependencies and then passes them in. However, I can understand that not all classes and what not have a Factory to create them. So it seems to me that some Service Locator pattern is acceptable...but...
When is it not acceptable?
What sort of pattern should I be on the look out for when I should rethink how I'm using the Service Locator Pattern?
Is my ModelBinder implementation wrong? If so, what do I need to learn to fix it?
In another question along the lines of this one user Mark Seemann recommended an Abstract Factory - How does this relate?
I guess that's it - I can't really think of any other question to help my understanding but any extra information is greatly appreciated.
I understand that DI might not be the answer to everything and I might be going overboard in how I implement it, however, it seems to work the way I expect it to with Unit Testing and what not.
I'm not looking for code to fix my example implementation - I'm looking to learn, looking for an explanation to fix my flawed understanding.
I wish stackoverflow.com had the ability to save draft questions. I also hope whoever answers this question gets the appropriate amount of reputation for answering this question as I think I'm asking for a lot. Thanks, in advance.
Consider the following:
public class MyClass
{
IMyInterface _myInterface;
IMyOtherInterface _myOtherInterface;
public MyClass(IMyInterface myInterface, IMyOtherInterface myOtherInterface)
{
// Foo
_myInterface = myInterface;
_myOtherInterface = myOtherInterface;
}
}
With this design I am able to express the dependency requirements for my type. The type itself isn't responsible for knowing how to instantiate any of the dependencies, they are given to it (injected) by whatever resolving mechanism is used [typically an IoC container]. Whereas:
public class MyClass
{
IMyInterface _myInterface;
IMyOtherInterface _myOtherInterface;
public MyClass()
{
// Bar
_myInterface = ServiceLocator.Resolve<IMyInterface>();
_myOtherInterface = ServiceLocator.Resolve<IMyOtherInterface>();
}
}
Our class is now dependent on creating the specfic instances, but via delegation to a service locator. In this sense, Service Location can be considered an anti-pattern because you're not exposing dependencies, but you are allowing problems which can be caught through compilation to bubble up into runtime. (A good read is here). You hiding complexities.
The choice between one or the other really depends on what your building on top of and the services it provides. Typically if you are building an application from scratch, I would choose DI all the time. It improves maintainability, promotes modularity and makes testing types a whole lot easier. But, taking ASP.NET MVC3 as an example, you could easily implement SL as its baked into the design.
You can always go for a composite design where you could use IoC/DI with SL, much like using the Common Services Locator. You component parts could be wired up through DI, but exposed through SL. You could even throw composition into the mix and use something like the Managed Extensibility Framework (which itself supports DI, but can also be wired to other IoC containers or service locators). It's a big design choice to make, generally my recommendation would be for IoC/DI where possible.
Your specific design I wouldn't say is wrong. In this instance, your code is not responsible for creating an instance of the model binder itself, that's up to the framework so you have no control over that but your use of the service locator could probably be easily changed to access an IoC container. But the action of calling resolve on the IoC container...would you not consider that service location?
With an abstract factory pattern the factory is specialised at creating specific types. You don't register types for resolution, you essentially register an abstract factory and that builds any types that you may require. With a Service Locator it is designed to locate services and return those instances. Similar from an convention point of view, but very different in behaviour.
I have been reading though the code of the NerdDinner app and specifically the Repository Pattern...
I have one simple question though, regarding this block
public DinnersController()
: this(new DinnerRepository()) {
}
public DinnersController(IDinnerRepository repository) {
dinnerRepository = repository;
}
What if each Dinner also had, say, a Category... my question is
Would you also initialize the category Repository in the constructor of the class??
Im sure it would work but Im not sure if the correct way would be to initialize the repository inside the method that is going to use that repository or just in the constructor of the class??
I would appreciate some insight on this issue
Thanks.
What you're looking at here is actually not so much to do with the repository pattern, per se, and more to do with "dependency injection," where the outside things on which this class depends are "injected" from without, rather rather than instantiated within (by calling new Repository(), for example).
This specific example shows "constructor injection," where the dependencies are injected when the object is created. This is handy because you can always know that the object is in a particular state (that it has a repository implementation). You could just as easily use property injection, where you provide a public setter for assigning the repository or other dependency. This forfeits the stated advantage of constructor injection, and is somewhat less clear when examining the code, but an inversion-of-control container can handle the work of instantiating objects and injecting dependencies in the constructor and/or properties.
This fosters proper encapsulation and improves testability substantially.
The fact that you aren't instantiating collaborators within the class is what improves testability (you can isolate the behaviour of a class by injecting stub or mock instances when testing).
The key word here when it comes to the repository pattern is encapsulation. The repository pattern takes all that data access stuff and hides it from the classes consuming the repository. Even though an ORM might be hiding all the actual CRUD work, you're still bound to the ORM implementation. The repository can act as a facade or adapter -- offering an abstract interface for accessing objects.
So, when you take these concepts together, you have a controller class that does not handle data access itself and does not instantiate a repository to handle it. Rather the controller accepts an injected repository, and knows only the interface. What is the benefit? That you can change your data access entirely and never ever touch the controller.
Getting further to your question, the repository is a dependency, and it is being provided in the constructor for the reasons outlined above. If you have a further dependency on a CategoryRepository, then yes, by all means inject that in the constructor as well.
Alternatively, you can provide factory classes as dependencies -- again classes that implement some factory interface, but instead of the dependency itself, this is a class that knows how to create the dependency. Maybe you want a different IDinnerRepository for different situations. The factory could accept a parameter and return an implementation according to some logic, and since it will always be an IDinnerRepository, the controller needs be none the wiser about what that repository is actually doing.
To keep your code decoupled and your controllers easily testable you need to stick with dependency injection so either:
public DinnersController()
: this(new DinnerRepository(), new CategoryRepository()) {
}
or the less elegant
public DinnersController()
: this(new DinnerRepository(new CategoryRepository())) {
}
I would have my dinner categories in my dinner repository personally. But if they had to be seperate the id put them both in the ctor.
You'd want to pass it in to the constructor. That said, I probably wouldn't create any concrete class like it's being done there.
I'm not familiar with the NerdDinner app, but I think the preferred approach is to define an IDinnerRepository (and ICategoryRepository). If you code against interfaces and wanted to switch to say, an xml file, MySQL database or a web service you would not need to change your controller code.
Pushing this out just a little further, you can look at IoC containers like ninject. The gist of it is is that you map your IDinnerRepository to a concrete implementation application wide. Then whenever a controller is created, the concrete repository (or any other dependency you might need) is provided for you even though you're coding against an interface.
It depends on whether you will be testing your Controllers (, which you should be doing). Passing the repositories in by the constructor, and having them automatically injected by your IOC container, is combining convenience with straightforward testing. I would suggest putting all needed repositories in the constructor.
If you seem to have a lot of different repositories in your constructors, it might be a sign that your controller is trying to do too many unrelated things. Might; sometimes using multiple repositories is legitimate.
Edit in response to comment:
A lot of repositories in one controller constructor might be considered a bad code smell, but a bad smell is not something wrong; it is something to look at because there might be something wrong. If you determine that having these activities handled in the same controller makes for the highest overall simplicity in your solution, then do that, with as many repositories as you need in the constructor.
I can use myself as an example as to why many repositories in a controller is a bad smell. I tend to get too cute, trying to do too many things on a page or controller. I always get suspicious when I see myself putting a lot of repositories in the constructor, because I sometimes do try to cram too much into a controller. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. Or, maybe the code smell does indicate a deeper problem, but it not one that is too horrible, you can fix it right now, and maybe you won't ever fix it: not the end of the world.
Note: It can help minimize repositories when you have one repository per Aggregate root, rather than per Entity class.
How often do you use IoC for controllers/DAL in real projects?
IoC allows to abstract application from concrete implementation with additional layer of interfaces that should be implemented. But how often concrete implementation changes? Should we really have to do job twice adding method to interface then the implementation if implementation hardly will ever be changed? I took part in about 10 asp.net projects and DAL (ORM-like and not) was never rewritten completely.
Watching lots of videos I clearly understand that IoC "is cool" and the really nice way to program, but does it really needed?
Added a bit later:
Yes, IoC allows prepare better testing environment, but we also have nice way to test DAL without IoC. We wrap DAL calls to database into uncommited transactions without risk to make data unstable.
IoC isn't a pattern only for writing modular programs; it also allows for easier testing, by being able to swap in mock objects that implement the same interface as the components they stand in for.
Plus, it actually makes code much easier to maintain down the road.
It's not IOC that allows you to abstract application from concrete implementation with additional layer of interfaces, this is how you should design your application in order to be more modular and reusable. Another important benefit is that once you've designed your application this way it will be much easier to test the different parts in isolation without depending on concrete database access for example.
There's much more about IoC except ability to change implementation:
testing
explicit dependencies - not hidden inside private DataContext
automatic instantiation - you declare in constructor that you need something, and you get it - with all deep nested dependencies resolved
separation of assemblies - take a look at S#arp Architecture to see how IoC allows to avoid referencing NHibernate and other specific assemblies, which otherwise you'll have to reference
management of lifetime - ability to specify per request / singleton / transitive lifetime of objects and change it in one place, instead of in dozens of controllers
ability to do dynamic stuff, like, getting correct data context in model binders, because with IoC you now have metadata about your dependencies; and this shows that maybe IoC does to your object dependencies what reflection does to C# programming - a lot of new possibilities, that you never even thought about
And so on, I'm sure I missed a lot of positive stuff. While the only "bad" thing that I can think about (and that you mentioned) is duplication of interface, which is non-issue with modern IDEs support for refactoring.
Well, if your data interfaces change every day, and you have hundreds of them - you may want to avoid IoC.
But, do you avoid good design practices just because it's harder to follow them? Do you copy and paste code instead of extracting a method/class, just because it takes more time and more code to do so? Do you place business logic in views just because it's harder to create view models and sync them with domain models? If yes, then you can avoid IoC, no problem.
You're arguing that using IOC takes MORE code than not using it. I disagree.
Here is the entire DAL IOC configuration for one of my projects using LinqToSql. The ContextProvider class is simply a thread safe LinqToSql context factory.
container.Register(Component.For<IContextProvider<LSDataContext>, IContextProvider>().LifeStyle.PerWebRequest.ImplementedBy<ContextProvider<LSDataContext>>();
container.Register(Component.For<IContextProvider<WorkSheetDataContext>, IContextProvider>().LifeStyle.PerWebRequest.ImplementedBy<ContextProvider<WorkSheetDataContext>>();
container.Register(Component.For<IContextProvider<OffersReadContext>, IContextProvider>().LifeStyle.PerWebRequest.ImplementedBy<ContextProvider<OffersReadContext>>();
Here is the entire DAL configuration for one of my projects using NHibernate and the repository pattern:
container.Register(Component.For<NHSessionBuilder>().LifeStyle.Singleton);
container.Register(Component.For(typeof(IRepository<>)).ImplementedBy(typeof(NHRepositoryBase<>)));
Here is how I consume the DAL in my BLL (w/ dependency injection):
public class ClientService
{
private readonly IRepository<Client> _Clients;
public ClientService(IRepository<Client> clients)
{
_Clients = clients;
}
public IEnumerable<Client> GetClientsWithGoodCredit()
{
return _Clients.Where(c => c.HasGoodCredit);
}
}
Note that my IRepository<> interface inherits IQueryable<> so this code is very trivial!
Here's how I can test my BLL without connecting to a DB:
public void GetClientsWithGoodCredit_ReturnsClientWithGoodCredit()
{
var clientWithGoodCredit = new Client() {HasGoodCredit = true};
var clientWithBadCredit = new Client() {HasGoodCredit = false};
var clients = new List<Client>() { clientWithGoodCredit, clientWithBadCredit }.ToTestRepository();
var service = new ClientService(clients);
var clientsWithGoodCredit = service.GetClientsWithGoodCredit();
Assert(clientsWithGoodCredit.Count() == 1);
Assert(clientsWithGoodCredit.First() == clientWithGoodCredit);
}
ToTestRepository() is an extension method that returns a fake IRepository<> that uses an in-memory list.
There is no possible way you can argue that this is more complicated than newing up your DAL all over your BLL.
The only way you could have ever written the above test is by connecting to a DB, saving some test clients, and then querying. I guarantee that takes 100+ times longer to execute than this did. (Times that by 1000 tests and you can go get some coffee while you're waiting.)
Also, by using uncommitted transactions for testing you introduce debugging nightmares resulting from ORMs that don't query over uncommitted entities.
We are developing what is becoming a sizable ASP.NET MVC project and a code smell is starting to raise its head.
Every controller has 5 or more dependencies, some of these dependencies are only used for 1 of the action methods on the controller but obviously are created for every instance of the controller.
I'm struggling to think of a good way to reduce the number of objects that are created needlessly for 90% of calls.
Here are a few ideas I'm toying around with:
Splitting the controllers down into smaller, more targeted ones.
Currently we have roughly a controller per domain entity, this has led to nice looking URLs which we would like to emulate, meaning we would end up with a much more complicated routing scheme.
Passing in an interface wrapping the IoC container.
This would mean the objects would only be created when they were explicitly required. However, this just seems like putting lipstick on a pig.
Extending the framework in some way to achieve some crazy combination of the two.
I feel that others must have come across this same problem; so how did you solve this or did you just live with it because it isn't really that big a problem in your eyes?
I've been pondering solutions to this very problem, and this is what I've come up with:
Inject your dependencies into your controller actions directly, instead of into the controller constructor. This way you are only injecting what you need to.
I've literally just whipped this up, so its slightly naive and not tested in anger, but I intend to implement this asap to try it out. Suggestions welcome!
Its of course StructureMap specific, but you could easily use a different container.
in global.asax:
protected void Application_Start()
{
ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(
new StructureMapControllerFactory());
}
here is structuremapcontrollerfactory:
public class StructureMapControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory
{
protected override IController GetControllerInstance(Type controllerType)
{
try
{
var controller =
ObjectFactory.GetInstance(controllerType) as Controller;
controller.ActionInvoker =
new StructureMapControllerActionInvoker();
return controller;
}
catch (StructureMapException)
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(ObjectFactory.WhatDoIHave());
throw;
}
}
}
and structuremapcontrolleractioninvoker (could do with being a bit more intelligent)
public class StructureMapControllerActionInvoker : ControllerActionInvoker
{
protected override object GetParameterValue(
ControllerContext controllerContext,
ParameterDescriptor parameterDescriptor)
{
object parameterValue;
try
{
parameterValue = base.GetParameterValue(
controllerContext, parameterDescriptor);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
parameterValue =
ObjectFactory.TryGetInstance(
parameterDescriptor.ParameterType);
if (parameterValue == null)
throw e;
}
return parameterValue;
}
}
There is the concept of "service locator" that has been added to works like Prism. It has the advantage of reducing that overhead.
But, as you say, it's just hiding things under the carpet. The dependencies do not go away, and you just made them less visible, which goes against one of the goals of using DI (clearly stating what you depend on), so I'd be careful not to overuse it.
Maybe you'd be better served by delegating some of the work. If there is some way you were intending to re-partition your controller, you might just want to create that class and make your controller obtain an instance of it through DI.
It will not reduce the creation cost, since the dependencies would still be resolved at creation time, but at least you'd isolate those dependencies by functionality and keep your routing scheme simple.
I would consider separately the problem of dependencies and creation of dependent objects. The dependency is simply the fact that the controller source code references a certain type. This has a cost in code complexity, but no runtime cost to speak of. The instantiation of the object, on the other hand, has a runtime cost.
The only way to reduce the number of code dependencies is to break up the controllers. Anything else is just making the dependencies a bit prettier, as you say. But making the dependencies (as opposed to instantiation of the dependent objects, which I'll cover in a second) prettier may well be enough of a solution that you don't need to break up the controllers. So IoC is a decent solution for this, I think.
Re: creating the objects, you write, "...some of these dependencies are only used for 1 of the action methods on the controller but obviously are created for every instance of the controller." This strikes me as the real problem, rather than the dependency, per se. Because it's only going to get worse as your project expands. You can fix this problem by changing the instantiation of the objects so that it does not happen until they are needed. One way would be to use properties with lazy instantiation. Another way would be to use arguments to your action methods with model binders which instantiate the objects you need. Yet another way would be to write functions which return the instances you need. It's hard to say which way is best without knowing the purpose of the objects you're using.
Your controllers may be becoming too "Fat". I suggest creating an application tier which sit beneath your controllers. The application tier can encapsulate a lot of the orchestration going on inside your controller actions and is much more testable. It will also help you organize your code without the constraints of designated action methods.
Using ServiceLocation will also help (and yes, I'm essentially reiterating Denis Troller's answer- which probably isn't good but I did vote his answer up).