How to test this scenario:
I have a user repository that (so far) only has one method: SaveUser.
"SaveUser" is suposed to receive a user as a parameter and save it to the DB using EF 6.
If the user is new (new user is defined by a "Email" that is not present in the database) the method is supposed to insert it, if its not, the method is supposed to only update it.
Technically if this method is called, all business validation are OK, only remaining the act of actually persisting the user
My problem here is: I don't actually want to create a new user or update one every time... this would lead to undesired side effects in the future (let's call it "paper trail")... How do i do it?
Here is the test code:
public void CreateOrUpdateUserTest1()
{
UserDTO dto = new UserDTO();
dto.UniqueId = new Guid("76BCB16B-4AD6-416B-BEF6-388D56217E76");
dto.Name = "CreateOrUpdateUserTest1";
dto.Email = "leo#leo.com";
dto.Created = DateTime.Now;
GeneralRepository repository = new GeneralRepository();
//Now the user should be CREATED on the DB
repository.SaveUser(dto);
dto.Name = "CreateOrUpdateUserTest";
//Now the user should be UPDATED on the DB
repository.SaveUser(dto);
}
Your repository probably needs to invoke some methods of a third party library to actually persist the data. Unit-testing in such case could only make sense if you could mock the third party library and verify and the particular persistence methods are being correctly invoked by your repository. To achieve this, you need to refactor your code.
Otherwise, you can't unit-test this class, but also consider that maybe there is no need to. The third party library responsible for persistence is a different component, so testing if DB storage works correctly with your classes is rather a matter of Integration testing.
Related
I have the following test code:
try
{
Product product = productService.GetProductById(1502);
product.ProductName = "TEST PRODUCT NAME";
throw new ArgumentException("");
//Do some other DB updates
//Call SaveChanges
productService.SaveChanges();
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
logService.InsertLog(LogTypeEnum.Error, "test", ex);
logService.SaveChanges();
}
The problem is that my services share a context per request (using StructureMaps HttpContextScoped). So when the failure occurs and I call logService.SaveChanges it saves the products new name. However I lose atomicity because the "other DB updates" will not be saved to the DB. What would be the correct way to implement this?
This is always going to be a problem with context per-request. In a large project I started out with context per-request too, but have gradually removed it due to problems like this.
I would suggest identifying the scenarios like this where you are likely to need to write to your DB without calling SaveChanges - if it's all limited to this log service then perhaps you should re-implement this without the dependence on the context? Alternatively you should be able to specify a custom way of creating the log service with its own context (i.e. not just having one injected by the constructor).
I'm not familiar with the Structuremap syntax so here's something from Autofac which would do the same...
builder.RegisterType<MyContext>().InstancePerRequest(); // As you have already
builder
.Register(c => new LogService(new MyContext())
.As<ILogService>().InstancePerRequest();
This would construct LogService using an explicitly created context rather than the per-request instance which would've been injected had I registered it normally.
Apologies, in advance, if this seems like a duplicate question. This question was the closest I could find, but it doesn't really solve the issues I am facing.
I'm using Entity Framework 5 in an ASP.NET MVC4 application and attempting to implement the Unit of Work pattern.
My unit of work class implements IDisposable and contains a single instance of my DbContext-derived object context class, as well as a number of repositories, each of which derives from a generic base repository class that exposes all the usual repository functionality.
For each HTTP request, Ninject creates a single instance of the Unit of Work class and injects it into the controllers, automatically disposing it when the request is complete.
Since EF5 abstracts away the data storage and Ninject manages the lifetime of the object context, it seems like the perfect way for consuming code to access in-memory entity objects without the need to explcitly manage their persistence. In other words, for optimum separation of concerns, I envisage my controller action methods being able to use and modify repository data without the need to explicitly call SaveChanges afterwards.
My first (naiive) attempt to implement this idea employed a call to SaveChanges within every repository base-class method that modified data. Of course, I soon realized that this is neither performance optimized (especially when making multiple successive calls to the same method), nor does it accommodate situations where an action method directly modifies a property of an object retrieved from a repository.
So, I evolved my design to eliminate these premature calls to SaveChanges and replace them with a single call when the Unit of Work instance is disposed. This seemed like the cleanest implementation of the Unit of Work pattern in MVC, since a unit of work is naturally scoped to a request.
Unfortunately, after building this concept, I discovered its fatal flaw - the fact that objects added to or deleted from a DbContext are not reflected, even locally, until SaveChanges has been called.
So, what are your thoughts on the idea that consuming code should be able to use objects without explicitly persisting them? And, if this idea seems valid, what's the best way to achieve it with EF5?
Many thanks for your suggestions,
Tim
UPDATE: Based on #Wahid's response, I am adding below some test code that shows some of the situations in which it becomes essential for the consuming code to explicitly call SaveChanges:
var unitOfWork = _kernel.Get<IUnitOfWork>();
var terms = unitOfWork.Terms.Entities;
// Purge the table so as to start with a known state
foreach (var term in terms)
{
terms.Remove(term);
}
unitOfWork.SaveChanges();
Assert.AreEqual(0, terms.Count());
// Verify that additions are not even reflected locally until committed.
var created = new Term { Pattern = "Test" };
terms.Add(created);
Assert.AreEqual(0, terms.Count());
// Verify that additions are reflected locally once committed.
unitOfWork.SaveChanges();
Assert.AreEqual(1, terms.Count());
// Verify that property modifications to entities are reflected locally immediately
created.Pattern = "Test2";
var another = terms.Single(term => term.Id == created.Id);
Assert.AreEqual("Test2", another.Pattern);
Assert.True(ReferenceEquals(created, another));
// Verify that queries against property changes fail until committed
Assert.IsNull(terms.FirstOrDefault(term => term.Pattern == "Test2"));
// Verify that queries against property changes work once committed
unitOfWork.SaveChanges();
Assert.NotNull(terms.FirstOrDefault(term => term.Pattern == "Test2"));
// Verify that deletions are not even reflected locally until committed.
terms.Remove(created);
Assert.AreEqual(1, terms.Count());
// Verify that additions are reflected locally once committed.
unitOfWork.SaveChanges();
Assert.AreEqual(0, terms.Count());
First of all SaveChanges should NOT be ever in the repositories at all. Because that's leads you to lose the benefit of UnitOfWork.
Second you need to make a special method to save changes in the UnitOfWork.
And if you want to call this method automatically then you may fine some other solution like ActionFilter or maybe by making all your Controllers inherits from BaseController class and handle the SaveChanges in it.
Anyway the UnitOfWork should always have SaveChanges method.
I'm working on an application which will use EF5 as ORM.
Before start, I needed to create tests to confirm that everything in EF5 is working as it should. One of things I tested was support for UnitOfWork. I simulated multiple units of work by creating multiple instances of DbContext (like multiple requests when DbContext lifetime is set to PerWebRequest in IOC).
I encountered a suprise there, as EF5, as it seems uses something like SqlDependency, because I have situation as folows:
DbContext unit1 = new DbContext(), unit2 = new DbContext();
unit1.Items.Add(new Item() { Name = "Item1" });
Assert.AreEqual(0, unit1.Items.ToList().Count); // true as item is in unit1.Items.Local collection
Assert.AreEqual(0, unit2.Items.ToList().Count);
unit1.SaveChanges();
Assert.AreEqual(1, unit1.Items.ToList().Count); // true as unit1 is saved
Assert.AreEqual(1, unit2.Items.ToList().Count); // true as unit2 is somehow notified of changes
I am trying to find documentation but neither EF project pages and blogs nor google help me. This is not how old version of EF worked, where there was no out of the box feature to notify other contexts (i.e. see this question). It is nice if this is implemented but I need document which says it is, because I'm afraid that I cannot rely on this feature, and I cannot rely on knowing that data in my context won't change if other unit of work completes, as here obviously does.
I'm using GWT 2.4 with RequestFactory but not still everything is clear for me.
In this article author wrote about situation when we used an entity proxy with one instance of RequestContext and want to reuse (edit()) this entity proxy with other instance of RequestContext:
It cannot be edited because it has already a requestContext assigned.
If you want to change it you must retrieve instance of this entity
from server again
But I'm getting no exceptions when I execute this code:
RequestContext newRequest1 = factory.myRequest();
newRequest1.edit(proxy);
RequestContext newRequest2 = factory.myRequest();
newRequest2.edit(proxy);
The problems (exception) described by autor pop up when I run this version:
RequestContext newRequest1 = factory.myRequest();
MyProxy edited = newRequest1.edit(proxy);
RequestContext newRequest2 = factory.myRequest();
newRequest2.edit(edited);
So it seems that only editable copy returned by edit() is directly related with RequestContext instance.
In that case is there something wrong in approoach in which I keep one instance of (uneditable/frozen) proxy in my edit view and each time user clicks "edit" button I edit() it with new fresh RequestContext? Or should I obtain fresh instance of proxy each time too?
Getting new instance of proxy seems a bit awkward for me but I guess reusing one proxy instance may cause some issues related to sending delta of changes to server?
So to rephrase the question: it a good practice to reuse single instance of proxy with multiple RequestContexts?
There's no problem editing the same proxy twice (or more), as long as there's only a single editable instance at a time (your first code snippet should throw; if it's not then it's a bug; it could work if you don't keep references on both the RequestContext and the edited proxy).
Note that RequestFactory sends only the modified properties to the server, but it does so by diff'ing with the non-editable instance passed to edit(); so you should try to use the most recent instance as possible to keep your server-side/persisted data as close to your client-side data as possible (could seem obvious, but can lead to some surprises in practice: if you see foo on the client but have bar on the server, you'll keep the bar on the server-side until you modify the property on the client-side to something other than foo)
I am building an ASP.NET 4.0 MVC 2 app with a generic repository based on this blog post.
I'm not sure how to deal with the lifetime of ObjectContext -- here is a typical method from my repository class:
public T GetSingle<T>(Func<T, bool> predicate) where T : class
{
using (MyDbEntities dbEntities = new MyDbEntities())
{
return dbEntities.CreateObjectSet<T>().Single(predicate);
}
}
MyDbEntities is the ObjectContext generated by Entity Framework 4.
Is it ok to call .CreateObjectSet() and create/dispose MyDbEntities per every HTTP request? If not, how can I preserve this object?
If another method returns an IEnumerable<MyObject> using similar code, will this cause undefined behavior if I try to perform CRUD operations outside the scope of that method?
Yes, it is ok to create a new object context on each request (and in turn a call to CreateObjectSet). In fact, it's preferred. And like any object that implements IDisposable, you should be a good citizen and dispose it (which you're code above is doing). Some people use IoC to control the lifetime of their object context scoped to the http request but either way, it's short lived.
For the second part of your question, I think you're asking if another method performs a CRUD operation with a different instance of the data context (let me know if I'm misinterpreting). If that's the case, you'll need to attach it to the new data context that will perform the actual database update. This is a fine thing to do. Also, acceptable would be the use the Unit of Work pattern as well.