In Glass Mapper V4, we introduced an awesome feature for keeping your POCO objects isolated and allowing easier use of the fluent configuration API called Glass Mapper Configuration Maps. This post describes how you can auto-register all of the maps in a given assembly using your IoC container.
When it comes to modelling data using Glass Mapper, we as developers can often find there is too much choice. In this post I will look at some of the common scenarios & considerations we as developers are likely to face and how I choose to approach mapping with Glass Mapper on the Sitecore platform.
This should hopefully be a short and probably quite marmite post.
As the unit testing debate rages on with should we / shouldn’t we? How much does it cost? How long does it take? How much of it should we test? I have continued developing my skills as a developer, lead and designer of solutions. During this time I have learned a lot about approaches to unit testing and how I could achieve better ways to test my solutions.
I do qualify what I am about to say with the following: I have been doing automated testing in some guise or other since the middle of the last decade. As such, I have been through multiple generations of the pains that developers now face in the modern era (believe me when I say, the record / replay model for early mocking frameworks was far from the ease of the current NSubstitute / Moq we have now). Also – code coverage is a metric, like all metrics – it has it’s place and I believe that it is a very worthwhile one to isolate out untested (and often potentially flawed or unknown) area’s of your codebase. As a metric, it has to have some intelligence applied the other side of it to see what it is that is untested and refactor / test accordingly.
The Common Arguments & Questions
I am going to set aside the should we (not) unit test our code. My belief is very simple – we should and we should also achieve 100% test coverage. Below are listed some of the most common ones which I will cover.
- It has no logic – why should I test it?
- It is too difficult to test.
- It takes too long to write tests
A slightly strange title, but let me explain. First of all – it’s possibly self evident, but for those who don’t see it – developers in so many industries are treated similar to mushrooms – keep them sustained in a dark room and they will produce useful material. On the other hand – we have marketers / designers / project managers. The former two of which are (and rightly so in many instances) considered to be the driving forces in their field and thus are exposed to the sun (the clients / world) by virtue of glass walls & ceilings.
I have for many many years been both a developer and a social person. I enjoy interacting with clients / fellow developers & others – be them from media agencies or ‘end’ clients (ie: Sitecore Customers) and I have found distinct differences between the way different organisations interact with their own developers and (from a personal point of view) what I consider to be a disparity in how productive the developers can be directly linked to how close they are to the problem.
In this post I will explore why developers (mushrooms) should be allowed out to see the wider picture (greenhouse) more regularly.
I haven’t posted in a while, but recent projects got me thinking. I have had the opportunity to work in many environments with a range of tooling and processes over my career and there is one tool more than any other that I find a genuine hinderance on a day to day basis. This tool is Microsofts large ALM offering – TFS.
Recently I read this set of posts:
A post from Konstantin Cherkasov claiming Glass to be 2000 times slower than the Sitecore API
A post from Kam showing Synthesis to be 3x slower than the Sitecore API
and finally a post from Richard Seal showing Fortis performance:
In this post I look more into what makes this a fairly useless test in the real world and debunk the idea that Glass Mapper is actually 2000x slower than the Sitecore API.
Mike Edwards (at SUGCON 2015) did an awesome presentation on data modelling (I would highly recommend you check it out if he re-runs it) on the pros and cons of how to model data. Glass Mapper (unlike wrapping frameworks – Synthesis / Fortis) is uses the Data Mapper pattern to represent data. He also wrote a great post here – http://www.glass.lu/Blog/TemplateVsRendering
This gives distinct advantages in the functionality it can provide in terms of its exposure of native .net types, its ability to be able to read / write between databases, control of serialization, non-reliance on code generation, mocking, testing, caching etc.
It does also have the downside of being heavier on instantiation in comparison to simply wrapping the item and performing casts on demand. It is also further away from the originating record. This also means that unlike wrapping frameworks, the number of mapped properties will actually also impact the overall performance.
In a recent project I was working on, I found myself needing a way to be able to get at the rendering parameters and / or datasource of the rendering when using controller renderings. Below is a quick snippet to show one approach of how you can approach this problem. Continue reading
- ‘/App_Config/Include/.Sitecore.Speak.Important.Config’ – make sure this doesn’t have the hidden attribute set. If you need to, remove the ‘.’ prefix to force a refresh
- Double check that all the client assets also don’t have the hidden attribute set.
To test that everything is ok, visit the following URL: <Your_Host>/-/speak/v1/assets/main-1.2.js
You should see the require.js calls setup and loading the libraries necessary for the Sitecore desktop. In another post I’ll cover how you can turn on minification and etags!
Hope this saves you some time!
One thing I have noticed from many developers when setting up unit tests is that they like their Setup() methods. This is fine for example (shameless plug) if you are looking to integration test against something like Glass Mapper for Sitecore and want to initialise the configuration before you run your test. However, all too often, I see it used to set up things like mocks, and its this that I disagree with. So I guess for want of a better term – I created what I will (I think it’s probably technically a Builder pattern really) a ‘Test Harness’ pattern.