feat(data)!: implement Repository pattern #189
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes reorganize and refactor the codebase for testing and data access. A redundant test file was removed, and unit test files were updated with a new namespace and standardized trait attributes. New test classes, especially for the PlayerService, were added with comprehensive CRUD validations using Moq and FluentAssertions. Utility classes for database fakes, mocks, and stubs were introduced or restructured under a dedicated namespace. Additionally, a repository pattern was implemented by adding generic interfaces and classes for managing Player entities, leading to refactoring of PlayerService to use the repository instead of direct DbContext access. Dependency versions were also updated. Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Ctrl as Controller
participant PS as PlayerService
participant Repo as IPlayerRepository
participant DB as Database
Ctrl->>PS: Request Operation (Create/Retrieve/Update/Delete)
PS->>Repo: Invoke corresponding repository method
Repo->>DB: Execute database operation
DB-->>Repo: Return result/confirmation
Repo-->>PS: Send result
PS-->>Ctrl: Return response
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI 📒 Files selected for processing (4)
🧰 Additional context used🧬 Code Definitions (3)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerMocks.cs (1)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerControllerTests.cs (2)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs (3)
🪛 GitHub Check: Codeac Code QualityDotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerControllerTests.cs[warning] 45-52: CodeDuplication [warning] 325-332: CodeDuplication Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs[warning] 183-194: CodeDuplication [warning] 110-121: CodeDuplication [warning] 210-218: CodeDuplication [warning] 113-121: CodeDuplication 🔇 Additional comments (19)
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
nanotaboada
force-pushed
the
feature/repository-pattern
branch
from
f31e753 to
e498f3b
Compare
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferences |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #189 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 2 2
Lines 119 111 -8
Branches 7 7
=========================================
- Hits 119 111 -8 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Nitpick comments (13)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerStubs.cs (1)
1-5: Clean up unnecessary using directives.Now that the database-related methods have been moved to
DatabaseFakes, several using directives are no longer needed in this file:
System.Data.CommonDotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.DataMicrosoft.Data.SqliteMicrosoft.EntityFrameworkCoreOnly
Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ModelBindingis required for the current functionality.-using System.Data.Common; -using Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Data; using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ModelBinding; -using Microsoft.Data.Sqlite; -using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/PlayerRepository.cs (1)
10-11: Consider adding cancellation token support.To improve the robustness of async operations, especially for long-running queries in production environments, consider adding cancellation token support.
-public async ValueTask<Player?> FindBySquadNumberAsync(int squadNumber) => - await _dbSet.FirstOrDefaultAsync(p => p.SquadNumber == squadNumber); +public async ValueTask<Player?> FindBySquadNumberAsync(int squadNumber, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default) => + await _dbSet.FirstOrDefaultAsync(p => p.SquadNumber == squadNumber, cancellationToken);Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs (2)
15-46: Consider adding cancellation tokens to async methods.For all asynchronous methods, it's a best practice to include optional cancellation token parameters to allow for cancellation of long-running operations, especially in web applications.
-Task AddAsync(T entity); +Task AddAsync(T entity, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default); -Task<List<T>> GetAllAsync(); +Task<List<T>> GetAllAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default); -ValueTask<T?> FindByIdAsync(long id); +ValueTask<T?> FindByIdAsync(long id, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default); -Task UpdateAsync(T entity); +Task UpdateAsync(T entity, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default); -Task RemoveAsync(long id); +Task RemoveAsync(long id, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default);
10-46: Consider adding transaction support.For operations that may require transactional integrity, especially when multiple operations need to be performed as a single unit of work, consider adding transaction support methods.
+/// <summary> +/// Begins a new transaction. +/// </summary> +/// <returns>A Task representing the transaction.</returns> +Task<IDbContextTransaction> BeginTransactionAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default); +/// <summary> +/// Saves all pending changes in the context. +/// </summary> +/// <returns>A Task representing the save operation with the number of entities written.</returns> +Task<int> SaveChangesAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken = default);Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IPlayerRepository.cs (2)
12-20: Consider adding cancellation token to the specialized method.For consistency with other async methods, consider adding a cancellation token parameter to the
FindBySquadNumberAsyncmethod.-ValueTask<Player?> FindBySquadNumberAsync(int squadNumber); +ValueTask<Player?> FindBySquadNumberAsync(int squadNumber, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default);
1-2: Remove unnecessary file header comment.The first line contains a comment with the filename which is redundant since the filename is already known from the file itself. Consider removing this comment to maintain cleaner code.
-// IPlayerRepository.cs - using Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Models;Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerMocks.cs (1)
19-24: The RepositoryMock method is correctly implemented but lacks setup for common repository operations.While the method successfully creates a mock of IPlayerRepository, it doesn't include any default setup for common operations that might be needed in multiple tests.
Consider enhancing this method with common setups that can be reused across tests, similar to how MemoryCacheMock is implemented:
public static Mock<IPlayerRepository> RepositoryMock() { var mock = new Mock<IPlayerRepository>(); + + // Setup common operations + mock.Setup(repo => repo.GetAllAsync()) + .ReturnsAsync(new List<Player>()); + + mock.Setup(repo => repo.FindByIdAsync(It.IsAny<long>())) + .Returns((long id) => ValueTask.FromResult<Player?>(null)); return mock; }Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/Repository.cs (4)
17-21: Consider adding transaction handling for the AddAsync method.The current implementation makes two separate database calls (Add and SaveChanges) without transaction handling.
Consider adding transaction handling for operations that involve multiple database calls:
public async Task AddAsync(T entity) { + using var transaction = await _dbContext.Database.BeginTransactionAsync(); + try + { await _dbSet.AddAsync(entity); await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync(); + await transaction.CommitAsync(); + } + catch + { + await transaction.RollbackAsync(); + throw; + } }
25-25: FindByIdAsync lacks NoTracking option for read-only scenarios.When retrieving entities for read-only purposes, using AsNoTracking can improve performance.
Consider providing an overload that supports NoTracking:
public async ValueTask<T?> FindByIdAsync(long id) => await _dbSet.FindAsync(id); +public async ValueTask<T?> FindByIdNoTrackingAsync(long id) +{ + return await _dbSet.AsNoTracking().FirstOrDefaultAsync(e => EF.Property<long>(e, "Id") == id); +}
27-31: Consider adding transaction handling for the UpdateAsync method.Similar to AddAsync, this method performs multiple database operations without transaction handling.
Consider adding transaction handling as suggested for the AddAsync method.
33-41: RemoveAsync method could be optimized for performance.The current implementation makes an extra database call to find the entity before removing it.
For better performance with bulk operations, consider using a direct removal approach:
public async Task RemoveAsync(long id) { - var entity = await _dbSet.FindAsync(id); - if (entity != null) - { - _dbSet.Remove(entity); - await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync(); - } + // Create a proxy entity with just the ID + var entityType = _dbContext.Model.FindEntityType(typeof(T)); + var entity = Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); + entityType?.FindPrimaryKey()?.Properties + .Single() + .PropertyInfo? + .SetValue(entity, id); + + _dbContext.Entry(entity).State = EntityState.Deleted; + await _dbContext.SaveChangesAsync(); }Alternatively, provide both approaches as separate methods for different use cases.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/DatabaseFakes.cs (1)
36-47: Schema maintenance caution
Manual SQL table creation may drift out of sync if the EF model evolves. Consider using EF Core migrations orEnsureCreated()to maintain consistency and reduce maintenance overhead.Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs (1)
221-241: Consider using Times.Once() for consistency.The test for DeleteAsync is well-structured, but line 240 uses
Times.Exactly(1)while other tests useTimes.Once(). Consider standardizing verification syntax across tests.- memoryCache.Verify(cache => cache.Remove(It.IsAny<object>()), Times.Exactly(1)); + memoryCache.Verify(cache => cache.Remove(It.IsAny<object>()), Times.Once());🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Codeac Code Quality
[warning] 226-236: CodeDuplication
This block of 10 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:121
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (15)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/PlayerServiceTests.cs(0 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerControllerTests.cs(15 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/DatabaseFakes.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerFakes.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerMocks.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerStubs.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/packages.lock.json(3 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IPlayerRepository.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/PlayerRepository.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/Repository.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Program.cs(1 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/IPlayerService.cs(3 hunks)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/PlayerService.cs(5 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/PlayerServiceTests.cs
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Definitions (6)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Program.cs (2)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/PlayerRepository.cs (1)
PlayerRepository(6-12)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/PlayerService.cs (1)
PlayerService(8-113)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs (1)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerFakes.cs (1)
List(37-193)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/DatabaseFakes.cs (1)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerFakes.cs (1)
PlayerFakes(14-194)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/PlayerService.cs (4)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IPlayerRepository.cs (1)
ValueTask(20-20)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs (5)
ValueTask(32-32)Task(15-15)Task(22-22)Task(39-39)Task(46-46)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/PlayerRepository.cs (1)
ValueTask(10-11)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/Repository.cs (5)
ValueTask(25-25)Task(17-21)Task(23-23)Task(27-31)Task(33-41)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs (3)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs (4)
Task(15-15)Task(22-22)Task(39-39)Task(46-46)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/IPlayerService.cs (4)
Task(15-15)Task(22-22)Task(49-49)Task(56-56)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/PlayerService.cs (5)
Task(25-29)Task(35-66)Task(78-86)Task(92-99)PlayerService(8-113)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/IPlayerService.cs (2)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/PlayerService.cs (4)
Task(25-29)Task(35-66)Task(78-86)Task(92-99)Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs (4)
Task(15-15)Task(22-22)Task(39-39)Task(46-46)
🪛 GitHub Check: Codeac Code Quality
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs
[warning] 102-110: CodeDuplication
This block of 8 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:28
[warning] 28-36: CodeDuplication
This block of 8 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:102
[warning] 123-131: CodeDuplication
This block of 8 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:28
[warning] 28-36: CodeDuplication
This block of 8 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:123
[warning] 146-155: CodeDuplication
This block of 9 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:102
[warning] 102-111: CodeDuplication
This block of 9 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:146
[warning] 172-181: CodeDuplication
This block of 9 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:123
[warning] 123-132: CodeDuplication
This block of 9 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:172
[warning] 197-210: CodeDuplication
This block of 13 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:118
[warning] 118-131: CodeDuplication
This block of 13 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:197
[warning] 226-236: CodeDuplication
This block of 10 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:121
[warning] 121-131: CodeDuplication
This block of 10 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:226
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (1)
- GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis
🔇 Additional comments (44)
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/packages.lock.json (3)
1003-1005: Updated Microsoft.OpenApi to version 1.6.23
The resolved version and corresponding content hash forMicrosoft.OpenApihave been updated. Please verify that downstream dependencies or configuration settings relying on the previous version still work correctly with 1.6.23.
1326-1336: Upgrade Swashbuckle.AspNetCore to version 8.0.0 and update its transitive dependencies
TheSwashbuckle.AspNetCorepackage and its related components (Swagger,SwaggerGen, andSwaggerUI) have been updated to version 8.0.0. This major upgrade might introduce breaking changes in the Swagger configuration or customization logic. Please review your API documentation setup and sample endpoints to ensure compatibility with the new version.
1645-1647: Update project dependency range for Swashbuckle.AspNetCore
The project dependency forSwashbuckle.AspNetCorehas been revised to use the range[8.0.0, ), ensuring that only version 8.0.0 or higher is picked up. Confirm that this change aligns with the rest of the dependency graph and that no conflicts arise with other packages referencing earlier versions.Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerStubs.cs (3)
7-7: Namespace organization improvement.Moving the class to a dedicated
.Utilitiesnamespace provides better code organization and clearly indicates this class's purpose as a testing utility, which aligns with the Repository pattern implementation.
9-14: Well-documented stub definition.The XML documentation clearly explains what a Stub is, how it differs from other test doubles, and provides a practical example. This helps developers understand when and how to use this class appropriately.
15-22: Focused single responsibility.The class now has a single clear responsibility - providing stubs for model validation errors. This is consistent with the class name and the newly added documentation. The removal of database-related methods helps maintain the Single Responsibility Principle.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerFakes.cs (2)
5-5: Proper namespace organization.Moving
PlayerFakesinto the.Utilitiesnamespace improves organization and keeps test utilities properly grouped.
7-13: Good documentation of testing concepts.The added XML documentation clearly explains the concept of a "Fake" in testing, which helps developers understand the purpose and appropriate use of this class.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/PlayerRepository.cs (1)
6-12: Well-implemented Repository pattern.The
PlayerRepositoryclass correctly:
- Inherits from the generic
Repository<Player>base class- Implements the
IPlayerRepositoryinterface- Uses constructor injection for the database context
- Properly implements the player-specific query method
The implementation leverages the modern C# primary constructor syntax and uses async/await correctly.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IRepository.cs (1)
3-9: Well-documented interface with appropriate generic constraints.The interface is properly documented and uses the correct generic constraint (
where T : class), which is required for entities that will be used with EF Core.Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/IPlayerRepository.cs (1)
7-10: Well-designed specialized repository interface.The
IPlayerRepositoryproperly extends the generic repository interface and includes appropriate documentation.Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Program.cs (1)
39-41: Good implementation of dependency injection for the Repository pattern.The code correctly registers the repository and service implementations with their respective interfaces, following the Dependency Injection principle. The addition of memory cache registration is also appropriate for supporting the caching functionality in the service layer.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/PlayerMocks.cs (2)
8-8: Appropriate namespace update for test utilities.Moving the PlayerMocks class to a dedicated Utilities namespace improves code organization.
10-16: Good documentation practice for test utilities.The XML comments clearly explain the purpose of mocks in testing, which is valuable for developers who might be less familiar with mocking concepts.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Data/Repository.cs (3)
5-7: Good implementation of the generic Repository pattern.The Repository class correctly implements the IRepository interface with the generic type constraint. The constraint to class types is appropriate since entity types in an EF Core context are expected to be reference types.
8-15: Good encapsulation of DbContext and DbSet.The constructor properly initializes the DbContext and obtains the DbSet for the entity type. Protected access is appropriate to allow derived classes to access these members.
23-23: Concise implementation of GetAllAsync.The method efficiently retrieves all entities using a single expression with ToListAsync.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/IPlayerService.cs (7)
6-6: Documentation properly updated to reflect Repository pattern.The interface summary correctly reflects the change from direct database access to using a repository.
11-11: Method documentation aligned with Repository pattern.The CreateAsync method summary now correctly refers to adding a Player to the repository.
18-18: Method documentation aligned with Repository pattern.The RetrieveAsync method summary now correctly refers to retrieving players from the repository.
25-25: Method documentation aligned with Repository pattern.The RetrieveByIdAsync method summary now correctly refers to retrieving a Player from the repository.
35-35: Method documentation aligned with Repository pattern.The RetrieveBySquadNumberAsync method summary now correctly refers to retrieving a Player from the repository.
45-45: Method documentation aligned with Repository pattern.The UpdateAsync method summary now correctly refers to updating a Player in the repository.
52-52: Method documentation aligned with Repository pattern.The DeleteAsync method summary now correctly refers to removing a Player from the repository.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Utilities/DatabaseFakes.cs (3)
17-27: Use of in-memory testing connection is appropriate
Returning a live in-memory connection from this method is a valid testing approach. Ensure that any test harness disposes the returneddbConnectionto avoid potential resource leaks.
29-34: Straightforward DbContext creation
This method simply instantiates aPlayerDbContextwith the supplied options. The design is clear and keeps the testing code clean.
49-53: Effective database seeding
Seeding the database withPlayerFakes.CreateStarting11()is a convenient way to initialize realistic test data.Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerControllerTests.cs (1)
4-4: Consistent category tagging
Switching all test methods to[Trait("Category", "Unit")]promotes consistency and clarity across the test suite.Also applies to: 10-10, 19-19, 38-38, 59-59, 92-92, 115-115, 136-136, 158-158, 181-181, 206-206, 238-238, 258-258, 280-280, 308-308, 330-330
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi/Services/PlayerService.cs (9)
9-9: Repository injection
Receiving theIPlayerRepositorythrough constructor injection and storing it in_playerRepositoryaligns well with the repository pattern for improved testability and maintainability.Also applies to: 17-17
27-27: Delegated creation
Using_playerRepository.AddAsync(player)neatly separates concerns and removes direct DbContext dependencies here.
55-55: Retrieval from repository
Fetching data throughGetAllAsync()consolidates read logic inside the repository, fostering cleaner service code.
68-69: ID-based retrieval
Shifting ID lookups toFindByIdAsyncclarifies responsibility for data access in a single repository layer.
71-72: Squad-number retrieval
Relying onFindBySquadNumberAsyncensures the service remains database-agnostic, consistent with the repository abstraction.
80-80: Pattern matching for entity checks
Usingif (entity is Player ...)is a succinct way to confirm the record exists before proceeding.
83-83: Centralized update
Delegating updates toUpdateAsynckeeps the service thin and centralizes persistence concerns within the repository.
94-94: Existence check before delete
Verifying entity existence prevents unnecessary repository calls or exceptions. This is a prudent approach.
96-96: Remove operation
InvokingRemoveAsync(id)keeps deletion logic consistent with the broader repository pattern.Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs (7)
1-18: LGTM! The class setup looks good.The implementation of
IDisposableis appropriate for cleaning up environment variables after tests. The constructor properly sets up the test environment.
23-40: The test for CreateAsync properly verifies repository and cache interactions.The test correctly validates that
CreateAsyncadds a player to the repository and clears the memory cache. The Arrange-Act-Assert pattern is well implemented.🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Codeac Code Quality
[warning] 28-36: CodeDuplication
This block of 8 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:102
[warning] 28-36: CodeDuplication
This block of 8 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:123
46-68: Well-structured test for cache behavior in RetrieveAsync.The test properly verifies that when the repository returns players, they're stored in cache and returned to the caller. Clear assertions validate all expected interactions.
70-93: Nice performance test for caching behavior.This test effectively demonstrates the performance benefit of caching by measuring execution times. The verification that TryGetValue is called exactly twice ensures the cache is being checked appropriately.
195-215: The test for UpdateAsync is well-structured.The test correctly verifies that when updating a player, the service retrieves it first, then updates the repository, and finally clears the cache.
🧰 Tools
🪛 GitHub Check: Codeac Code Quality
[warning] 197-210: CodeDuplication
This block of 13 lines is too similar to Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs:118
243-252: Good utility method for measuring execution time.The
ExecutionTimeAsyncmethod is a well-implemented utility for measuring the execution time of asynchronous operations, which is essential for the performance comparison test.
254-267: Proper implementation of the dispose pattern.The dispose pattern is correctly implemented with both the virtual
Dispose(bool)method and the non-virtualDispose()method that suppresses finalization.
Dotnet.Samples.AspNetCore.WebApi.Tests/Unit/PlayerServiceTests.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Tests
Refactor
Chores