I'm a bit stuck in a modelling exercise. I'm supposed to have two classes, Employee and Manager. A manager is assigned to an employee and we have to know since when it's been assigned. An employee can have a history of several past managers and the current manager is the one with the most recent date. I currently have something like this:
but it doesn't feel right. Any ideas or hints on how to do it?
Physical deletions should be avoided; it is better to prefer logical deletions with a date or a boolean. In your case, the diagram is correct but information is indeed missing: cannot an employee exist, for a period, without a manager? The easiest: replace IsCurrentManager by endingDate and when the date is null, it is the current manager. In the db, the primary key will be id Employee + id Manager + startingDate
Related
I will try to keep this as generic as possible using the “order” and “product” example, to try and help others that come across this question.
The Structure:
In the application we have 3 different services, 2 services that follow the event sourcing pattern and one that is designed for read only having the separation between our read and write views:
- Order service (write)
- Product service (write)
- Order details service (Read)
The Background:
We are currently storing the relationship between the order and product in only one of the write services, for example within order we have a property called ‘productItems’ which contains a list of the aggregate Ids from Product for the products that have been added to the order. Each product added to an order is emitted onto Kafka where the read service will update the view and form the relationships between the data.
The Problem:
As we pull back by aggregate Id for the order and the product to update them, if a product was to be deleted, there is no way to disassociate the product from the order on the write side.
This in turn means we have inconsistency, that the order holds a reference to a product that no longer exists within the product service.
The Ideas:
Master the relationship on both sides, which means when the product is deleted, we can look at the associated orders and trigger an update to remove from each order (this would cause duplication of reference).
Create another view of the data that shows the relationships and use a saga to do a clean-up. When a delete is triggered, it will look up the view database, see the relationships within the data and then trigger an update for each of the orders that have the product associated.
Does it really matter having the inconsistencies if the Product details service shows the correct information? Because the view database will consume the product deleted event, it will be able to safely remove the relationship that means clients will be able to get the correct view of the data even if the write models appear inconsistent. Based on the order of the events, the state will always appear correct in the read view.
Another thought: as the aggregate Id is deleted, it should never be reused which means when we have checks on the aggregate such as: “is this product in the order already?” will never trigger as the aggregate Id will never be repurposed meaning the inconsistency should not cause an issue when running commands in the future.
Sorry for the long read, but these are all the ideas we have thought of so far, and I am keen to gain some insight from the community, to make sure we are on the right track or if there is another approach to consider.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Event sourcing suites very well human and specifically human-paced processes. It helps a lot to imagine that every event in an event-sourced system is delivered by some clerk printed on a sheet of paper. Than it will be much easier to figure out the suitable solution.
What's the purpose of an order? So that your back-office personnel would secure the necessary units at a warehouse, then customer would do a payment and you start shipping process.
So, I guess, after an order is placed, some back-office system can process it and confirm that it can be taken into work and invoicing. Or it can return the order with remarks that this and that line are no longer available, so that a customer could agree to the reduced order or pick other options.
Another option is, since the probability of a customer ordering a discontinued item is low, just not do this check. But if at the shipping it still occurs - then issue a refund and some coupon for inconvenience. Why is it low? Because the goods are added from an online catalogue, which reflects the current state. The availability check can be done on the 'Submit' button click. So, an inconsistency may occur if an item is discontinued the same minute (or second) the order has been submitted. And usually the actual decision to discontinue is made up well before the information was updated in the Product service due to some external reasons.
Hence, I suggest to use eventual consistency. Since an event-sourced entity should only be responsible for its own consistency and not try to fulfil someone else's responsibility.
In my company (train company) there is a sort of battle going on over two viewpoints on something. Before going to deep into the problem I'm first going to explain the different domains we have in our landscape now.
Product: All product master data and their characteristics.
Think their name, their possible list of choices...
Location: All location master data that can be chosen, like stations, stops, etc.
Quote: To get a price for a specific choice of a product with their attributes.
Order: The order domain where you can make a positive order but also a negative one for reimbursements.
Ticket: This is essentially what you get from paying the order. Its the product but in the state that its at, when gotten by the customer.
The problem
Viewpoint PURPLE (I don't want to create bias)
When an order is transformed into all "tickets", we convert the order details, like price, into the ticket model. In order to make Order something we can throw away. Order is seen as something transient. Kind of like the bag you have in a supermarket. Its the goods inside the bag that matter. Not the bag itself.
When a reimburse flow would start. You do not need to go to the order. You would have everything in the Ticket domain. So this means data from order will be duplicated to Ticket.
But not all, only the things that are relevant. Like price for example.
Viewpoint YELLOW (I don't want to create bias)
You do the same as above but you do not store the price in Ticket domain. The ticket domain only consist of details that are relevant for the "ticket" to work. Price is not allowed in there cause its a thing of the order. When a reimburse flow would start, its allowed to go fetch those details from the order. Making order not something you can throw away as its having crucial data inside of it.
The benefit here is that Order is not "polluting" the Ticket with unnecessary data. But this is debatable. The example of the price is a good example.
I wish to know your ideas about these two viewpoints.
There is no "Don't repeat yourself" when it comes to the business domain. The only thing that dictates the business domain is the business requirements. If the requirements state that the ticket should work independent of the order changes, then you have to duplicate things.
But in this case, the requirements are ambiguous. There is no correct design using the currently specified requirements. Building code based on assumptions is the #1 way of getting bad code, since you most likely will have to do a redesign down the road.
You need to go back to the product owner and ask him about the difference between the Order and the Ticket.
For instance:
What should happen to the ticket if the order is deleted?
What happens to the order and/or ticket if the product price changes?
What happens to a ticket if the order is reimbursed?
Go back, get better requirements and then start to design the application.
I am using the Excel Add-in to look at revision history. I would like to locate the information (User, Date, Time, etc.) when an Iteration in Rally was "removed". I am able to obtain this but get too many rows.
I want to know when an Iteration is removed from a project.
I don't want to know when the Iteration value is changed on a User Story.
Right now I am getting rows relating to both situations.
Any hints?
Regards,
Jim
Unfortunately there is not a specific single place to look for this, nor a single Webservices query that you can run to provide this information. Your best bet is to find a Work Product (User Story, Defect, etc.) that was scheduled into the Iteration, and examine its Revision History. There will be an entry similar to:
ITERATION removed [Iteration 3] 2013-May-15 12:19:43 PM America/Denver Mark W
That includes Date/Time and User that performed the delete.
This likely precludes Excel being the tool of choice to do this query as it would require you to query and parse many, many Revision History entries throughout your User Stories of interest.
I'm working on a project for a customer, and one of the requirements is that Users should be allow to assign to each Product (in their case, a Node) a Country or a Region, where the Region is simply a group of Countries, not necessarily in the same area.
I've seen there are many different ways to manage a list of Countries, often suggesting to use Taxonomy for them, but I can't figure out how could I allow users to create these "Regions". To make things complicated, customer wants to have a simple interface, where only one field is present on the form. In this field, Users must be able to choose either a Country or a Region.
Perhaps I could implement everything using Nodes, i.e.:
- Country Nodes
- Region Nodes, with a multiple-valued Node Reference to Country Nodes
But I wonder if that would not be too heavy...
I hope the issue is clear, if not feel free to ask and I'll try to explain it better. Thanks for all suggestions.
I ended up creating my own tables and code to handle the whole thing, as I couldn't find any better solution. I used tables from IP2Country module as a source for Country Codes.
One of the basic tenets of CQRS, as I understand it, is that commands should be behaviour-centric, and have a value in the business or the UL, and not data-centric, ie., CRUD. Instead of focusing on updating a customer, we have commands like CustomerHasMoved. What if you have CRUD screens which are there to correct certain data. For example, we need to change the name of a customer which is misspelled. This doesn't really have much value in the business. Should this just be under the umbrella of an UpdateCustomer command?
I just want to put a comment on this quickly as it popped up.
It is important to note that some objects are actually CRUD and thats ok. I may not really care why a name is changing in my domain where I ship products to people and only need that data to print mailing labels. The trick is in making behavior the default and THEN reverting to a CRUD interface once you are sure you really don't care about the reasons as opposed to vice versa.
Greg
Actually, there could be various reasons to update the name of a customer. As you were saying, it could be misspelled or... you could get married and change your name to your husband's.
If you had only an UpdateCustomer command, you would loose the original intent and you would not be able to have different behaviours for each of them. If the name was misselled it could be as simple as updating the database, whereas if your customer got married you might need to notify the marketing departement so tthat they can offer a discount.
In the case that your entity is purely CRUD, that is there is no intent that you can associate with modifying the properties, then it's OK to have an UpdateEntityCommand. You can then transition slowly to something more task based
CustomerHasMoved is the event that is fired after you have updated the customers location. This event updates the read databases/cache databases. The command from the gui should be MoveCustomer or something like that. I think I would put the update of the customer name in a command like UpdateCustomer.