this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

C Sharp

1518 readers
7 users here now

A community about the C# programming language

Getting started

Useful resources

IDEs and code editors

Tools

Rules

Related communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Short explanation of the title: imagine you have a legacy mudball codebase in which most service methods are usually querying the database (through EF), modifying some data and then saving it in at the end of the method.

This code is hard to debug, impossible to write unit tests for and generally performs badly because developers often make unoptimized or redundant db hits in these methods.

What I've started doing is to often make all the data loads before the method call, put it in a generic cache class (it's mostly dictionaries internally), and then use that as a parameter or a member variable for the method - everything in the method then gets or saves the data to that cache, its not allowed to do db hits on its own anymore.

I can now also unit test this code as long as I manually fill the cache with test data beforehand. I just need to make sure that i actually preload everything in advance (which is not always possible) so I have it ready when I need it in the method.

Is this good practice? Is there a name for it, whether it's a pattern or an anti-pattern? I'm tempted to say that this is just a janky repository pattern but it seems different since it's more about how you time and cache data loads for that method individually, rather than overall implementation of data access across the app.

In either case, I'd like to learn either how to improve it, or how to replace it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] booooop@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If testing this properly is your problem you should invest time in integration testing, running them on an in-memory database is an option as well. I think retrieving all the data and “caching” it like you call it has some negative consequences, for example what if the validation for some action fails and you didn’t need to load whatever you preloaded? Waste of a call to the db

[–] pohart@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You're right that this could introduce regressions, but it sounds like it's making more testable.

My biggest concern would be introducing db contention with locks being held for too long, and introducing race conditions because the cached data isn't locking the records when they're cached.

Edit: your->you're

[–] Cyno@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Validation is usually the first step so I only start preloading after it's done of course, but you are right - you can easily end up loading more data than it necessary.

However, it can also result in fewer overall queries - if I load all relevant entities at the beginning then later I won't have to do 2+ separate calls to get relevant data perhaps. For example, if I'm processing weather for 3 users, I know to preload all 3 users and weather data for the 3 locations where they live in. The old implementation could end up loading 3 users, then go into a loop and eventually into a method that processes their weather data and do 3 separate weather db hits for each of the users (this is a simplified example but something that I've definitely seen happen in more subtle ways).

I guess I'm just trying to find a way to keep it a pure method with only "actual logic" in it, without depending on a database. Forcing developers to think ahead about what data they actually need in advance also seems like a good thing maybe.

[–] pohart@programming.dev 1 points 10 months ago

Forcing developers to think ahead about what data they actually need in advance also seems like a good thing maybe.

It does.