Skip to main content

Factory Obsession

I have noticed a pattern over the years with developers of which I will refer to as factory obsession. Everything is a factory or builder object. To some, the use of new is banned.

Consider a object that is responsible for some business logic and finally saves the result to a persistent store.

Message here is a value object, however the new can cause an odd fear within developers. Therefore a factory is required. Or is it? How can we test the repository is updated with the new message without reference equality?

An example test in C#, using the Mock framework with this newly introduced factory would look like:

This fear of new is wrong.

  • Instantiating value types is a good thing.
  • Instantiating entities is a good thing.
  • Instantiating services can depend - if the service is expensive we don't want to create lots of instances on a whim.

Here the factory offers nothing but a more strongly coupled solution.

If we ignore the factory the test becomes easier to write. To do this equality should be correctly implemented upon the message value type. I have questioned this in the past but for correct Domain Driven Design (DDD) semantics this is a good thing to follow.

We can take this further though. If we ditch the factory idea all together and replace the repository with a fake implementation we can have an even cleaner test fixture. You would still need equality but the design retains its flexibility.

Factories have their place, like all design patterns, however they should be introduced as part of the refactor step in most cases. Hiding the new keyword is not a goal. The fact that mocking frameworks default to reference equality shouldn't force you to make a more complicated or coupled solution to a problem.


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…