I try to Set a constant which should contain the Connection String for my Database. But the Setup for my macro is so that on the first Sheet in my Excel there are a lot of Buttons. Depending on which Button the user clicks another Module gets executed, but all of them connect to the same DB at some point.
Since I don't want to change the Connection String at many different points it should be done with one Constant.
But I can never tell which Module gets executed an which doesn't.
Therefore I created a new Module which only contains one Line of Code:
Public Const ConnectionString As String = "Driver={MySQL ODBC 8.0 Unicode Driver};Server=localhost;Database=X;User=root;Password=X;"
Unfortunately when a Button is clicked and some Module/Sub gets executed, the Variable "ConnectionString" Contains no Value.
How can I make sure that independent of the called Sub/Module the Constant is set?
A Public constant must be used in all contexts (modules, classes, controls, forms etc.), except two cases:
a. Option Private Module is in effect;
b. The constant has also been declared in modules/procedures (Dim ConnectionString As String) but no value has been allocated. If, after declaration, a value would be allocated (ConnectionString = "xxx"), then VBA will return "xxx". So looking for ConnectionString As String in all project, the place of the real problem will be descovered, I think.
But at least part of the credit must go to #BrakNicku, who firstly put in discussion the second possibility...
Related
Can we use value object in command ?
Suppose I have a Shop (aggregate) in which there is one value object Address.
In the value object constructor Address ,I was put the some validation logic for address.
So if I am using that Address object in command (CreateShopCmd) , then it get validated at the making of command , but What I want or Read that validation should be present in command handler.
But problem is that , I have to put that validation again in command handler (Since validation is already present in it Address constructor) and if I am not putting that in command handler , then the validation will occur when I am making the Address object in event handler and assign to Shop aggregate(Which is incorrect)
So, please guide me.
Below are code example
#Aggregate
#AggregateRoot
public class Shop {
#AggregateIdentifier
private ShopId shopId;
private String shopName;
private Address address;
#CommandHandler
public Shop(CreateShopCmd cmd){
//Validation Logic here , if not using the Address in
// in cmd
//Fire an event after validation
ShopRegistredEvt shopRegistredEvt = new ShopRegistredEvt();
AggregateLifecycle.apply(shopRegistredEvt);
}
#EventSourcingHandler
public void on(ShopRegistredEvt evt) {
this.shopName = evt.getShopName();
//Validation happend here if not put in cmd at the time of making
//Address object - this is wrong
this.address = new Address(evt.getCity(),evt.getCountry(),evt.getZipCode())
}
}
public class CreateShopCmd{
private String shopId;
private String shopName;
private String city;
private String zipCode;
private String country;
}
public ShopCreatedEvent{
private String shopId;
private String shopName;
private String city;
private String zipCode;
private String country;
}
There is nothing conceptually wrong with using Value Objects in Commands or Events. However, you should use them with caution.
The structure of a Message may change over time. If you have used Value Object excessively inside your messages, it may become less clear how a change in one of the value objects changes the structure of different messages.
For Value Objects that represent a "common" concept, such as an Address, this is not so much of a problem. But as soon as the Value Objects become more domain-specific, this may come up as an issue.
This is a very good question and I have been thoroughly thinking about embedding value objects in commands or not. I came to the conclusion you should definitely not use Value Objects in commands:
Commands are part of the application layer, they are supposed to work as simple as possible, avoiding any typed objects, and work best using literal (think serialization). What happen when an external system wants to plugin on your hexagon (application layer) and send commands to your application, do they need your command library to be able to use the objects and the structure defined ? Hell no ! You don't want that, so keep command simple.
Another reason is, as DmitriBodiu said, VO contains business logic and validation, they belong to the domain layer, do not ever put them in commands. Application service will do the translation, and be responsible of throwing validation error to any non conforming commands at the client.
There is nothing wrong in your design, its actually how Vaughn Vernon (the author of Implementing Domain Driven Design - IDDD book) did in his repository, you might want to check the application layer at this link:
https://github.com/VaughnVernon/IDDD_Samples/blob/master/iddd_identityaccess/src/main/java/com/saasovation/identityaccess/application/IdentityApplicationService.java
Notice how he reconstruct every objects from flat commands to value object belonging to the domain layer:
#Transactional
public void changeUserContactInformation(ChangeContactInfoCommand aCommand) {
User user = this.existingUser(aCommand.getTenantId(), aCommand.getUsername());
this.internalChangeUserContactInformation(
user,
new ContactInformation(
new EmailAddress(aCommand.getEmailAddress()),
new PostalAddress(
aCommand.getAddressStreetAddress(),
aCommand.getAddressCity(),
aCommand.getAddressStateProvince(),
aCommand.getAddressPostalCode(),
aCommand.getAddressCountryCode()),
new Telephone(aCommand.getPrimaryTelephone()),
new Telephone(aCommand.getSecondaryTelephone())));
}
Commands must not contain business logic, so they cannot carry a value object.
I wouldn't suggest using Value Objects in commands. Cause your commands are part of the application layer, but Value Objects are kept in Domain Layer. You can use your ValueObjects in DomainEvens though. Because if domain model changes, modification of your domain event wouln't be that painful, cause the modification is done in the same bounded context. You should never use ValueObjects in integration events though.
Short answer: Have you ever thought about Integer, String, Boolean, etc.? Those are Value Objects, too. The only difference is, that you didn't create them yourself. Now try to build a Command without any Value Objects ;-)
Long answer:
In general I don't see any issue with Value Objects within Commands. As long as you follow a few simple guidelines:
The most important code in your application is your Domain Model. The Domain Model defines the data structures it expects for Command handling. This means: The only reason to change your Command Model is if your Domain Model requires this change. The same applies to your Value Objects: Value Objects only change if this change is required by your Domain Model. No exceptions!
Commands can in general fail either because of business constraints, or because of invalid data (or because of optimistic locking, or whatever).
As said above: Integers and Strings are Value Objects, too. If you only use basic types within your Command, it will already throw an exception if you try new SetAgeCommand(aggId, "foo"), because String cannot be assigned to int. The same applies if you don't provide an Aggregate ID to your UpdatePersonCommand. These are no business constraints, but instead very basic data and type validation. Your Command will never be created if you pass malformed data.
Now let's say you have a PersonAge Value Object. I doesn't matter where you construct this object, because in any case it must throw an Exception if you try to construct it with a negative number: -5 cannot be assigned to PersonAge - looks familiar? As long as you can make sure that your code created those Value Object instances, you can know for sure that they are valid.
Business rules should be checked by the Command Handler within your Domain Model. In general business constraints are specific to your Domain, and most often they rely on the data within your Aggregate. Take for example SendMoneyCommand. Your Money Value Object can validate if it's a valid currency, but it cannot validate if the user's bank account has enough money to execute the transaction. This is a business validation and it's part of your Domain Model.
And a word regarding Events: I'd suggest to only use very basic Value Objects inside your events. For example: String, Integer, Date, etc. Basically every kind of Value Object that will never change. The reason behind it: Business requirements can change. For example: Maybe your Domain Model requires your Address Value Object to change, and it's now required to provide geo-coordinates. Then this will implicitly change your NewAddressAddedEvent. But your already persisted Events didn't have this requirement, though you're unable to construct Address Value Objects from your past event data, because the new Address Value Object will throw an Exception if there are no geo-coordinates provided.
There are (at least) two solutions for this problem:
Versioned Events: After modifying your Address Value Object, you have now a NewAddressAddedEvent_Version2 which uses the new Address Value Object, and you have the old NewAddressAddedEvent which must use a backup copy of the old Address Value Object.
Write a Script that "repairs" your event database by adding geo-coordinates to every Event that uses the Address Value Object. So you can throw away the old NewAddressAddedEvent.
That's OK as long as the value objects are conceptually a part of your message contract, and not used in entities.
And if they are a part of your entity, don't expose them as public properties of your message or you'll be in soop.
The setup
I'm developing and maintaining an Excel add-in that comes with its own tab of controls within Excel's Ribbon UI. I've come across the problem of state loss before (meaning loss of all variables with global scope, static variables, etc, which of course includes my reference to the RibbonUI). With regards to the ribbon reference I've "solved" the problem by including a "Reset Ribbon" button that restores the reference from a persistently stored pointer and then invalidates the ribbon. Although certainly not the most elegant, this part works just fine.
However, after the introduction of a logging class, the state loss issue haunts me once again. The logger is instantiated in ThisWorkbook's module:
Private Sub Workbook_Open()
Set LogToFile = SingletonFactory.getToFileLogger
End Sub
and is then put to work, for example, as follows:
Private Sub buttonReloadObjects_onAction(ByVal control As IRibbonControl)
LogToFile.trace "Event firing: buttonReloadObjects_onAction"
' more stuff happening...
invalidateRibbon ' restores ribbon object and invalidates it
End Sub
The logger is instantiated when the add-in is loaded so that I have the freedom to log whatever I want within the confines of my add-in's code. It has several logging levels like trace/debug/error/... and a couple of other methods. Usually it works just fine - until the state loss hits (usually caused by an unrelated error, followed by clicking "End").
State loss
At this point the VBA environment forgets about the very existence of my LogToFile object and nothing works any more, because every click on the ribbon controls will trigger a runtime error 91: Object variable or with block variable not set pointing to whatever line is the first to contain a reference to LogToFile.
A solution?
Now, short of doing crazy workarounds like placing
if not isObject(LogToFile) then
Set LogToFile = SingletonFactory.getToFileLogger
end if
LogToFile.trace "Message"
before any occurrence of LogToFile, the only real "solution" I was able to come up with is to wrap all my logger calls in functions (residing in a standard module) and call these functions any time I want to send something to the log. This way I could catch the missing object reference right before the object is needed and I avoid calling methods of uninstantiated objects.
However, after having everything neatly encapsulated in class modules, it strikes me as odd, maybe even wrong(?), going down this route.
So, is there a "proper" solution to the problem of a lost logger instance? Or is my suggested approach already as proper as it can get?
Note: This problem is of course not specific to logging classes. It affects all global variables, most notably my ApplicationEventClass. The issue just happens to be the most glaring with the logger due to its frequent usage around all entry points to the code.
You only need one function that either returns the original variable or resets it. If you call that function LogToFile you don't need to change any of the other code other than removing the Workbook_Open code which is then superfluous. So:
Function LogToFile() As WhateverVariableType
Static temp as WhateverVariableType
If temp is Nothing then Set temp = SingletonFactory.getToFileLogger
Set LogToFile = temp
End Function
This way you will also still benefit from Intellisense when writing the code.
Note: you may not actually need the temp variable - it depends on whether there are settings that you want persisted. If there are, you may want to reset them in the function too.
I have a string variable assigned a value in Form1, but wish to use this variable (and the same value) in another form within the database (e.g. Form2).
How can this be achieved?
You could create a global variable.
Declare it outside any procedures at the top of Form1, like this:
Public strYourVariable as String
Now, once you have assigned a value to strYourVariable, it will be available in other modules and forms.
The global variables will be reset if you:
Use "End"
Get an unhandled error
Edit your VBA code
Close Access
After spending a year working with the Microsoft.Xrm.Sdk namespace, I just discovered yesterday the Entity.FormattedValues property contains the text value for Entity specific (ie Local) Option Set texts.
The reason I didn't discover it before, is there is no early bound method of getting the value. i.e. entity.new_myOptionSet is of type OptionSetValue which only contains the int value. You have to call entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"] to get the string text value of the OptionSetValue.
Therefore, I'd like to get the crmsrvcutil to auto-generate a text property for local option sets. i.e. Along with Entity.new_myOptionSet being generated as it currently does, Entity.new_myOptionSetText would be generated as well.
I've looked into the Microsoft.Crm.Services.Utility.ICodeGenerationService, but that looks like it is mostly for specifying what CodeGenerationType something should be...
Is there a way supported way using CrmServiceUtil to add these properties, or am I better off writing a custom app that I can run that can generate these properties as a partial class to the auto-generated ones?
Edit - Example of the code that I would like to be generated
Currently, whenever I need to access the text value of a OptionSetValue, I use this code:
var textValue = OptionSetCache.GetText(service, entity, e => e.New_MyOptionSet);
The option set cache will use the entity.LogicalName, and the property expression to determine the name of the option set that I'm asking for. It will then query the SDK using the RetrieveAttriubteRequest, to get a list of the option set int and text values, which it then caches so it doesn't have to hit CRM again. It then looks up the int value of the New_MyOptionSet of the entity and cross references it with the cached list, to get the text value of the OptionSet.
Instead of doing all of that, I can just do this (assuming that the entity has been retrieved from the server, and not just populated client side):
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
but the "new_myoptionset" is no longer early bound. I would like the early bound entity classes that gets generated to also generate an extra "Text" property for OptionSetValue properties that calls the above line, so my entity would have this added to it:
public string New_MyOptionSetText {
return this.GetFormattedAttributeValue("new_myoptionset"); // this is a protected method on the Entity class itself...
}
Could you utilize the CrmServiceUtil extension that will generate enums for your OptionSets and then add your new_myOptionSetText property to a partial class that compares the int value to the enums and returns the enum string
Again, I think specifically for this case, getting CrmSvcUtil.exe to generate the code you want is a great idea, but more generally, you can access the property name via reflection using an approach similar to the accepted answer # workarounds for nameof() operator in C#: typesafe databinding.
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues["new_myoptionset"];
// becomes
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues
[
// renamed the class from Nameof to NameOf
NameOf(Xrm.MyEntity).Property(x => x.new_MyOptionSet).ToLower()
];
The latest version of the CRM Early Bound Generator includes a Fields struct that that contains the field names. This allows accessing the FormattedValues to be as simple as this:
var textValue = entity.FormattedValues[MyEntity.Fields.new_MyOptionSet];
You could create a new property via an interface for the CrmSvcUtil, but that's a lot of work for a fairly simple call, and I don't think it justifies creating additional properties.
Consider the following code Snippet
Form form2 = new Form();
test(form2);
form2.Show();
public void test(Form f)
{
f = null;
}
Since f also holds "another" reference to Form2, setting f to null should set Form2 to null as well, which it doesn't. Need a good explanation to understand this.
The reference set to null is the local copy of the form2 reference. As the reference is passed by value, meaning making an exact copy and passing the copy, the original remains untouched.
The value passed here can be seen as a memory address (which is not exactly the case vith VMs but it is a helpful and adequate metaphor).
In the test method, you set a variable holding a copy of this address to null. This has no further consequences whatsoever.
The case is very different if you use the address stored in the variable to access and change the actual Object the address refers to. You are changing the real thing here, so all changes remain after your local variable runs out of scope.
To take one more step back :
You can see the variable as a slip of paper with an address of a friend (your object).
If you burn the paper (setting the variable to null), your friend is not affected.
If you use the paper to visit the address and give your friend a present or slap him in the face (calling a method on the object behind the variable), he is definitely affected and you have to live with the consequences
(I'm assuming this is Java.)
Method parameters are always passed by value. That means their contents are always copied to a new variable. In this case the contents of the variable f, which contains a reference to an object, are copied to a new variable. When that new variable's contents are replaced with null, the contents of the original variable are unaffected -- they still point to the original object.