Skip to main content

Past Mistakes - ORMs and Bounded Contexts

Sticking with the theme of documenting past mistakes, it's worth expanding a real life scenario where I was unaware of the use of bounded contexts and fully understanding the tools you use.

Ignoring a Bounded Context

A fellow developer set upon a quest to rid numerous projects of duplicated records, which was effectively the active record pattern. This was a huge under taking split across hundreds of thousands of lines of code, over numerous separate projects. Close to completing the task I assisted and finally the shared library containing a single record for each type was complete. Each project now referenced the shared copy. This was versioned as each build was completed.

For a while this worked with no problems. It certainly felt nice to see the reduction in duplicated code. Sadly sometime later myself and another developer made a seemingly innocent change. In terms of relation, the change was as far removed from the production error that we had just been alerted to was. There was no link. It was a different project, in a different path, on a different model. The only commonality was the fact the issue only occurred after the previous deploy.

ORMs and Changes

Several minutes of panic later, the problem was spotted. While the model we had changed had no direct relation, indirectly there was. As each record was loaded by the ORM in question, links and dependencies where also loaded or checked. So were the children's links and dependencies. Finally this would hit the newly changed record. Due to the database changing ahead of the library, numerous other projects now had a runtime error. As we naively believed we were only working within a single project, we deployed the changes within the one project. As the library was shared, all other projects were now vulnerable.

This lack of bounded context, and focusing on removal of duplication was not the only lesson here. This issue painfully highlighted the need and importance to know exactly what your tools are doing, especially when they are hidden behind the scenes. In fact, my use of ORMs other than micro-ORMs is next to non existent at present.


  • Use bounded contexts.
  • Favour loose coupling, over reduced duplication.
  • Anything shared must be deployed and tested as a single unit, otherwise remove the shared component.
  • ORMs (or other tools) should be understand and respected.


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…