I'm writing a service that shouldn't have to save anything. It gets some values. Looks up a few things in the database, and then coughs back a response. Is there anything I should do to make the service faster/less overhead? Also whats the best way to pass it something. I usually pass the id and get it again; is that good/bad/dumb?
example
class DoStuffController {
def ExampleProcessingService
def yesDoIt = {
def lookup = "findme"
def theObject = ExampleThing.findByLookie(lookup)
def lolMap = ExampleProcessingService.doYourThing(theObject.id)
if(lolMap["successBool"]){
theObject.imaString = "Stuff"
theObject.save()
}
[]
}
}
service
class ExampleProcessingService{
static transactional = true //???????? false? not-a?
def doYourThing = {theID ->
def returnMap = [:]
def myInstance = ExampleThing.get(theID)
if(myInstance.something)returnMap.put "successBool", true
else returnMap.put "successBool", false
return returnMap
}
}
domain object
class ExampleThing {
String imaString
String lookie
static constraints = {
imaString(nullable:true)
}
def getSomething() {
return true
}
}
bootstrap
import learngrails.*
class BootStrap {
def init = { servletContext ->
def newThing = new ExampleThing(lookie:"findme")
newThing.save()
}
def destroy = {
}
}
Is the an advantage, disadvantage or standard to passing ID and doing get vs. passing the object? Does this change given my case of not going to save anything in the service? Is there something I'm doing glaringly wrong? Do you have a better suggestion for the title?
You've asked a lot of questions, and should split this into several individual questions. But I'll address the overall issue - this approach is fine in general.
There's not a lot of overhead in starting and committing a transaction that doesn't do any database persistence, but it is wasteful, so you should add
static transactional = false
In this case you're using the class as an easily injected singleton helper class. It's convenient to do transactional work in services because they're automatically transactional, but it's far from a requirement.
One thing though - do not use closures in services. They're required in controllers and taglibs (until 2.0 anyway) but should always be avoided in services and other classes. If you're not using the fact that it's a closure - i.e. passing it as an object to a method as a parameter, or setting its delegate, etc. - then you're just being way too groovy. If you're calling it like a method, make it a method. The real downside to closures in services is that when you want them to be transactional, they cannot be. This is because Spring interceptors intercept method calls, not closure calls that Groovy pretends are method calls. So there won't be any interception for transactions, security, etc.
Related
I'm using grails 4.0.6 and I need to check if a given service's method is in execution with a certain domain object's instance. In this case, the method takes a long time to run and it is called with a parameter (a domain class' instance). If it is called again with the same instance that it is currently in execution with, the call must be aborted. I tried setting a flag in the domain class (and flushed the update) however it is not reflected in the new call. Any hints are appreciated.
If you need to abort the second call, use a Lock. If you just don't want them running concurrently, use a synchronized block.
Lock:
class MyService {
static def locks = [:]
def someMethod(inputParam) {
def key = "${inputParam.class}${inputParam.id}"
def lock = locks.get(key)
if (!lock) {
lock = new ReentrantLock()
locks.put(key, lock)
}
if (lock.tryLock()) {
// do your work here
lock.unlock()
}
}
}
Synchronized:
Your service method would pretty much be
synchronized (key) {
// your work
}
Any of this may need tweaks...I just typed it in here without any testing!
I'm not a programming savvy person, so please bear with me.
I've read blog entries and docs about command object. I've never used it and was wondering if I should. (I probably should...)
My project requires parsing, sorting, calculating, and saving results into database when users upload files.
So according to one of the blog entries I read and its corresponding github code,
1) SERVICE should receive file uploads, parse uploaded files (mainly docs and pdfs), sort parsed data using RegEx, and calculate data,
2) COMMAND OBJECT should call SERVICE, collect results and send results back to controller, and save results into the database,
3) CONTROLLER should receive request from VIEW, get results from COMMAND OBJECT, and send results back to VIEW.
Did I understand correctly?
Thanks.
I found this to be the best setup. Here is an example that I use on production:
Command Object (to carry data and ensure their validity):
#grails.validation.Validateable
class SearchCommand implements Serializable {
// search query
String s
// page
Integer page
static constraints = {
s nullable: true
page nullable: true
}
}
Controller (directs a request to a Service and then gets a response back from the Service and directs this response to a view):
class SomeController {
//inject service
def someService
def search(SearchCommand cmd) {
def result = someService.search(cmd)
// can access result in .gsp as ${result} or in other forms
render(view: "someView", model: [result: result])
}
}
Service (handles business logic and grabs data from Domain(s)):
class SomeService {
def search(SearchCommand cmd) {
if(cmd.hasErrors()) {
// errors found in cmd.errors
return
}
// do some logic for example calc offset from cmd.page
def result = Stuff.searchAll(cmd.s, offset, max)
return result
}
}
Domain (all database queries are handled here):
class Stuff {
String name
static constraints = {
name nullable: false, blank: false, size: 1..30
}
static searchAll(String searchQuery, int offset, int max) {
return Stuff.executeQuery("select s.name from Stuff s where s.name = :searchQuery ", [searchQuery: searchQuery, offset: offset, max:max])
}
}
Yes, you understood it correctly except the one thing: command object shouldn't save the data to DB - let service to do that. The other advantage of command object is data binding and validation of data from the client. Read more about command objects here grails command object docs
You can also find helpful information regarding your question in this article
grails best practices
I guess not. Its not really related to whether the save is done in a service it should always attempt to carry out complex stuff and specifically db stuff in a service. so that is regardless. I tend to not use command object but have got hooked on helper classes aka beans that sit in src/main/groovy and do all of the validation and formatting. I just did a form and in it has feedback and reason.
Initially I thought I would get away with
def someAction(String feedback, String reason) {
someService.doSomething(feedback,reason)
}
But then I looked closed and my form was firstly a textarea then the selection objects were bytes so above was not working and to simply fix it without adding the complexity to my controller/service I did this:
packe some.package
import grails.validation.Validateable
class SomeBean implements Validateable {
User user
byte reason
String feedback
static constraints = {
user(nullable: true)
reason(nullable:true, inList:UsersRemoved.REASONS)
feedback(nullable:true)
}
void setReason(String t) {
reason=t as byte
}
void setFeedback(String t) {
feedback=t?.trim()
}
}
Now my controller
class SomeController {
def userService
def someService
def doSomething(SomeBean bean){
bean.user = userService.currentUser
if (!bean.validate()) {
flash.message=bean.errors.allErrors.collect{g.message([error : it])}
render view: '/someTemplate', model: [instance: bean,template:'/some/template']
return
}
someService.doSomeThing(bean)
}
}
Now my service
Class SomeService {
def doSomeThing(SomeBean bean) {
if (bean.user=='A') {
.....
}
}
All of that validation would have still had to have been done somewhere, you say no validation but in a good model you should do validation and set things to be stored in proper structures to reduce overloading your db over time. difficult to explain but in short i am talking about your domain class objects and ensuring you are not setting up String something string somethingelse and then not even defining their lenghts etc. be strict and validate
if you have a text area this will be stored in the back end - so you will need to trim it like above - you will need to ensure the input does not exceed the max character of the actual db structure which if not defined will probably be 255
and by doing
static constraints = {
user(nullable: true)
reason(min:1, max:255, nullable:true, inList:UsersRemoved.REASONS)
Has already invalidated it through the bean.validate() in the controller if the user exceeded somehow my front end checks and put in more than 255.
This stuff takes time be patient
Edited to finally add in that example byte - is one to be careful of -
When adding any String or what ever I have started to define the specific like this and in the case of byte if it is a boolean true false - fine if not then define it as a tinyint
static mapping = {
//since there is more than 1 type in this case
reason(sqlType:'tinyint(1)')
feedback(sqlType:'varchar(1000)')
// name(sqlType:'varchar(70)')
}
If you then look at your tables created in the db you should find they have been created as per definition rather than standard 255 varchar which I think is the default for a declared String.
We need to be able to rollback a complex transaction in a service, without throwing an exception to the caller. My understanding is that the only way to achieve this is to use withTransaction.
The question is:
why do I have to call this on a domain object, such as Books.withTransaction
What if there is no relevant domain object, what is the consequence of picking a random one?
Below is more or less what I am trying to do. The use case is for withdrawing from an account and putting it onto a credit card. If the transfer fails, we want to rollback the transaction, but not the payment record log, which must be committed in a separate transaction (using RequiresNew). In any case, the service method must return a complex object, not an exception.
someService.groovy
Class SomeService {
#NotTransactional
SomeComplexObject someMethod() {
SomeDomainObject.withTransaction{ status ->
DomainObject ob1 = new DomainObject.save()
LogDomainObject ob2 = insertAndCommitLogInNewTransaction()
SomeComplexObject ob3 = someAction()
if (!ob3.worked) {
status.setRollbackOnly() // only rollback ob1, not ob2!
}
return ob3
}
}
}
The above is flawed - I assume "return ob3" wont return ob3 from the method, as its in a closure. Not sure how to communicate from inside a closure to outside it.
To your primary question: you can pick a random domain object if you want, it won't do any harm. Or, if you prefer, you can find the current session and open a transaction on that instead:
grailsApplication.sessionFactory.currentSession.withTransaction { /* Do the things */ }
Stylistically I don't have a preference here. Others might.
Not sure how to communicate from inside a closure to outside it.
In general this could be hard; withTransaction could in principle return anything it wants, no matter what its closure argument returns. But it turns out that withTransaction returns the value returned by its closure. Here, watch:
groovy> println(MyDomainObject.withTransaction { 2 + 2 })
4
By convention, all withFoo methods which take a closure should work this way, precisely so that you can do the thing you're trying to do.
I'm assuming this question was from a grails 2 application and this problem from 2015 has been fixed before now.
I can't find this in any of the grails 2 documentation, but services have a magic transactionStatus variable injected into their methods. (at least in grails 2.3.11)
You can just leave all the annotations off and use that injected variable.
Class SomeService {
SomeComplexObject someMethod() {
DomainObject ob1 = new DomainObject.save()
LogDomainObject ob2 = insertAndCommitLogInNewTransaction()
SomeComplexObject ob3 = someAction()
if (!ob3.worked) {
transactionStatus.setRollbackOnly() // transactionStatus is magically injected.
}
return ob3
}
}
This feature is in grails 2, but not documented. It is documented in grails 3.
https://docs.grails.org/latest/guide/services.html#declarativeTransactions
search for transactionStatus.
Setting up some integration tests, I'm having issues with domain class equality. The equality works as expected during normal execution, but when testing the Service methods through an integration test, the test for equality is coming back false.
One service (called in the setUp() of the Test Case) puts a Domain object into the session
SomeService {
setSessionVehicle(String name) {
Vehicle vehicle = Vehicle.findByName(name)
session.setAttribute("SessionVehicle", vehicle)
}
getSessionVehicle() {
return session.getAttribute("SessionVehicle")
}
}
Elsewhere in another service, I load an object and make sure the associated attribute object matches the session value:
OtherService {
getEngine(long id) {
Vehicle current = session.getAttribute("SessionVehicle")
Engine engine = Engine.get(id)
if(!engine.vehicle.equals(current)) throw Exception("Blah blah")
}
}
This works as expected during normal operation, preventing from loading the wrong engine (Ok, I sanitized the class names, pretend it makes sense). But in the integration test, that .equals() fails when it should succeed:
Vehicle testVehicle
setUp() {
Vehicle v = new Vehicle("Default")
v.save()
someService.setSessionVehicle("Default")
testVehicle = someService.getSessionVehicle()
}
testGetEngine() {
List<Engine> engines = Engine.findAllByVehicle(testVehicle)
//some assertions and checks
Engine e = otherService.getEngine(engines.get(0).id)
}
The findAll() call is correctly returning the list of all Engines associated with the vehicle in the session, but when I try to look up an individual Engine by ID, the equality check for session Vehicle vs Vehicle on the found Engine fails. Only a single vehicle has been created at this point and the Exception message displays that the session Vehicle and the Engine.Vehicle exist and are the same value.
If I attempt this equality check in the testCase itself, it fails, but I'm able to change the testCase to check if(vehicle.id == sessionVehicle.id) which succeeds, but I'm not keen on changing my production code in order to satisfy an integration test.
Am I doing something wrong when setting up these domain objects in my test case that I should be doing differently?
First of all, the equality check you are doing is just checking the reference. You should not use the default equals method for your check, better override the equals method in domain class.
There are two ways you can override the equals method:
1) you can use your IDE to auto-generate code for equals method(a lot of null checking etc..).
2) Preferred way: You can use EqualsBuilder and HashCodeBuilder classes from the Apache Commons project. The library should be already available to your application, or download the JAR file and place in lib. Here is sample code for using EqualsBuilder:
boolean equals(o) {
if ( !(o instanceof Vehicle) ) {
return false
}
def eb = new EqualsBuilder()
eb.append(id, o.id)
eb.append(name, o.name)
eb.append(otherProperties, o.otherProperties)
....
return eb.isEquals()
}
Another point is: how you are getting session in service? from RequestContextHolder? Its a good practice to not access session directly from service, rather send the value as method parameter in the service.
Sorry if this is a newbie question but I would really appreciate any insights the community could offer with regard to a problem I am having with stubbing the following method which I have in a Grails service, LocationService.
Location locate(String target, String locator, Application app, boolean sync = true) {
if (!target) throw new IllegalArgumentException("Illegal value for msid: " + target)
def locRequest = Request.create(target, Type.LOCATE)
if (!locRequest.save()) {
return Location.error(target, "Error persisting location request")
}
locationSource.locateTarget(target, locator, app, sync)
}
I have a domain class, Request, that as well as the default GORM methods also has some extra domain methods, eg. the create() method below
#EqualsAndHashCode
class Request {
String reference
String msid
Type type
Status status
Destination destination
DateTime dateCreated
DateTime dateCompleted
static create(String msid, Type type, Destination destination = Destination.DEFAULT) {
new Request(reference: reference(type), type: type, status: Status.INITIATED, dateCreated: new DateTime())
}
Finally, I have a Spock specification. I need to mock both the default GORM methods but also some stub some extra domain logic, eg, a static create method, in order to return a valid object to be persisted in the code under test.
Ideally, I would use Spock mocks but I can't use them here as according to the post below from Peter N, they need to be injected into the caller and in this case the Request (which I am trying to mock), is created as a local variable in the locate method in LocationService:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/spockframework/JemiKvUiBdo
Nor can I use the Grails 2.x #Mock annotation as, although this will mock the GORM methods, I am unsure if i can mock/stub the additional static create() method from the Request class.
Hence, finally, I have been trying to use the Groovy StubFor / MockFor methods to do this as I believe that these will be used in the call to the test method by wrapping it in a use closure (as below).
Here is the test spec:
#TestFor(LocationService)
// #Mock(Request)
class LocationServiceSpec extends Specification {
#Shared app = "TEST_APP"
#Shared target = "123"
#Shared locator = "999"
def locationService = new LocationService()
LocationSource locationSource = Mock()
def "locating a valid target should default to locating a target synchronously"() {
given:
def stub = new StubFor(Request)
stub.demand.create { target, type -> new Request(msid: target, type: type) }
stub.demand.save { true }
1 * locationSource.locateTarget(target, locator, app, SYNC) >> { Location.create(target, point, cellId, lac) }
def location
when:
stub.use {
location = locationService.locate(target, locator, app)
}
then:
location
}
However, when I run the test, although the stubbed create method returns my Request stub object, I get a failure on the stubbed save method:
groovy.lang.MissingMethodException: No signature of method: com.domain.Request.save() is applicable for argument types: () values: []
Possible solutions: save(), save(boolean), save(java.util.Map), wait(), last(), any()
Could anybody please point out what I am doing wrong here or suggest the best approach to solve my particular case if needing to stub additional methods as well as GORM methods of a domain class that I can't inject directly into the code under test?
Thank you in advance,
Patrick
I believe you should be able to use Grails' #Mock annotation like you mentioned for the GORM methods, and then you will need to manually mock the static methods:
#TestFor(LocationService)
#Mock(Request)// This will mock the GORM methods, as you suggested
class LocationServiceSpec extends Specification {
...
void setup() {
Request.metaClass.static.create = { String msid, Type type, Destination destination = Destination.DEFAULT ->
//Some logic here
}
}
...
When using the #Mock annotation, Grails will mock the default methods (save/get/dynamic finders), but it doesn't do anything to any additional methods you may have added, so you need to manually mock those.