Skip to main content

DDD Validation

Validation within an application (specifically in terms of Domain Driven Design - DDD) can be solved in a variety of ways.

  • A validate method on the entity/value type in question
  • An IsValid property/accessor on the entity/value type in question
  • A separate service could be used

Validate Method

Adding a validate method would work, but the flaw with this approach is that you lack any context of what is happening to the object in question.

Validate Flag

Some sort of flag on the object that denotes whether or not the object is in a valid state is undesirable. Firstly it forces the developer to ensure they check this at the correct time. If the object is invalid, exactly what do you do at this point? This approach is often used with a combination of a validate method that returns the exact error messages.

Validator Services

A separate service seems less than ideal at first when you consider developing a richer domain model, but this solution has numerous benefits. Firstly unlike the two solutions above you always have the context in which validation is being performed. For example, if you are saving a customer you will most likely want to perform different validation to what you would perform when loading up an aggregate.

An additional point to consider is that most validation is not business logic. In other words, checking for null references is not a business concern. Therefore separating this from your domain objects makes a lot of sense. The only logic the domain objects should contain is business logic.

As each service is a separate object, you gain the benefits of the single responsibility principle (SRP). Meaning testing, development and future changes are easier.

Example

The beauty here is that each validator (a simple function in this case) can be used in the correct context. E.g. when the PersonController POST handler is invoked, we use the person saving validator.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Constant Object Anti Pattern

Most constants are used to remove magic numbers or variables that lack context. A classic example would be code littered with the number 7. What does this refer to exactly? If this was replaced with DaysInWeek or similar, much clarity is provided. You can determine that code performing offsets would be adding days, rather than a mysterious number seven.Sadly a common pattern which uses constants is the use of a single constant file or object. The beauty of constants is clarity, and the obvious fact such variables are fixed. When a constant container is used, constants are simply lumped together. These can grow in size and often become a dumping ground for all values within the application.A disadvantage of this pattern is the actual value is hidden. While a friendly variable name is great, there will come a time where you will want to know the actual value. This forces you to navigate, if only to peek at the value within the constant object. A solution is to simple perform a refactor …

Three Steps to Code Quality via TDD

Common complaints and problems that I've both encountered and hear other developers raise when it comes to the practice of Test Driven Development are: Impossible to refactor without all the tests breakingMinor changes require hours of changes to test codeTest setup is huge, slow to write and difficult to understandThe use of test doubles (mocks, stubs and fakes is confusing)Over the next three posts I will demonstrate three easy steps that can resolve the problems above. In turn this will allow developers to gain one of the benefits that TDD promises - the ability to refactor your code mercifully in order to improve code quality.StepsStop Making Everything PublicLimit the Amount of Dependencies you Use A Unit is Not Always a Method or ClassCode quality is a tricky subject and highly subjective, however if you follow the three guidelines above you should have the ability to radically change implementation details and therefore improve code quality when needed.

DRY vs DAMP in Tests

In the previous post I mentioned that duplication in tests is not always bad. Sometimes duplication becomes a problem. Tests can become large or virtually identically excluding a few lines. Changes to these tests can take a while and increase the maintenance overhead. At this point, DRY violations need to be resolved.SolutionsTest HelpersA common solution is to extract common functionality into setup methods or other helper utilities. While this will remove and reduce duplication this can make tests a bit harder to read as the test is now split amongst unrelated components. There is a limit to how useful such extractions can help as each test may need to do something slightly differently.DAMP - Descriptive and Meaningful PhrasesDescriptive and Meaningful Phrases is the alter ego of DRY. DAMP tests often use the builder pattern to construct the System Under Test. This allows calls to be chained in a fluent API style, similar to the Page Object Pattern. Internally the implementation wil…