Skip to main content

Validation is not a Cross Cutting Concern

Attributes in C# are also known as decorators in Python or annotations in Java. Other languages may have similar constructs. This post will use attribute throughout but refers to the same concept.


While attributes prove useful for cross cutting concerns such as authorization or logging, they can be misused. Attributes should act as metadata, providing no direct behaviour. Failing to do so will make DI, testability and composition very difficult.

These flaws are especially true for validation. Despite all input requiring validation, the manner in which validation is performed is dependent on the entry point to the code. Context matters.

Consider order information that requires a billing address and by definition, its children to be populated. An attribute works a treat here in this simple case.

A problem arises if you only want the billing address validation to activate if the billing address and delivery address differ.

Complexity quickly starts to take over. With a more fully featured example attributes can start to overwhelm the class. This example becomes worse if the validation is required to be performed by a third party library or service. Finding a hook to integrate becomes troublesome.

Solution

Avoid attributes for validation in all but the simplest scenarios. Even simple scenarios lead to some churn if you do decide to switch. My personal preference is to now avoid attributes all together, instead opting to use a validation service.

The obvious downside to this is approach is the appearance of more code. While this is true, composed object graphs can benefit from the ability of reuse. Additionally in the case of attributes some degree of testing is required. These usually fall into the category of asserting the presence of attributes on properties which is far from ideal. The use of validation services do not suffer this problem. Internally the implementation can be switched, altered or refactored without fear of breaking any tests.

Example

The RootValidator is a composite of zero or more actual validators. Each validator can be specific to a particular task. The only requirement being the interface must be the parent object. This is to ensure the context is not lost when making decisions. The actual interface in this case could be made to use generic types if required. The ValidationResults are a simple value type representing an aggregation of validation failures. This could be extended or modified for further enhancements.

Benefits

  • Composition makes it possible to provide multiple validators that all do one thing well.
  • Testing is much easy as you can test each validator in isolation.
  • Null validators provides easier higher level testing as you can provide a no-op validator. Removing the need to build up complex object graphs for other test cases.
  • Developers can follow, debug and understand simple conditional logic more so than framework specific metadata.
  • Open to extension and additions such as third party code.
  • Services never lose context which allows easy runtime decisions to be made.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Coding In the Real World

As a student when confronted with a problem, I would end up coding it and thinking - how do the professionals do this?For some reason I had the impression that once I entered the industry I would find enlightenment. Discovering the one true way to write high quality, professional code.It turns out that code in industry is not too far removed from the code I was writing back when I knew very little.Code in the real world can be:messy or cleanhard or easy to understandsimple or complexeasy or hard to changeor any combination of the aboveVery rarely will you be confronted with a problem that is difficult. Most challenges typically are formed around individuals and processes, rather than day to day coding. Years later I finally have the answer. Code in the real world is not that much different to code we were all writing when we first started out.If I could offer myself some advice back in those early days it would be to follow KISS, YAGNI and DRY religiously. The rest will fall into plac…

Feature Toggles

I'm a fan of regular releasing. My background and experience leads me to release as regularly as possible. There are numerous benefits to regular releases; limited risk, slicker release processes and the ability to change as requirements evolve.The problem with this concept is how can you release when features are not functionally complete?SolutionIf there is still work in progress, one solution to allow frequent releases is to use feature toggles. Feature toggles are simple conditional statements that are either enabled or disabled based on some condition.This simple example shows a feature toggle for an "Edit User" feature. If the boolean condition is false, then we only show the "New User" feature and the "Admin" feature. This boolean value will be provided by various means, usually a configuration file. This means at certain points we can change this value in order to demonstrate the "Edit User" functionality. Our demo environment could …

Reused Abstraction Principle

This is the second part of my series on abstractions.Part 1 - AbstractionsPart 3 - Dependency Elimination PrincipleThe Reused Abstraction Principle is a simple in concept in practice, but oddly rarely followed in typical enterprise development. I myself have been incredibly guilty of this in the past.Most code bases have a 1:1 mapping of interfaces to implementations. Usually this is the sign of TDD or automated testing being applied badly. The majority of these interfaces are wrong. 1:1 mappings between interfaces and implementations is a code smell.Such situations are usually the result of extracting an interface from an implementation, rather than having the client drive behaviour.These interfaces are also often bad abstractions, known as "leaky abstractions". As I've discussed previously, these abstractions tend to offer nothing more than simple indirection.ExampleApply the "rule of three". If there is only ever one implementation, then you don't need …