I have been reading Eric Evan's book on DDD and on page 139 he states:
"if you needed to add elements inside a preexisting AGGREGATE, you might create a FACTORY METHOD on the root of the AGGREGATE"
I would assume that could be implemented something like this where the method NewLineItem is used to create and add a new line item to the order.
class Order
{
public IEnumerable<LineItem> LineItems { get; }
public void NewLineItem(Product product, int quantity);
}
Another way I could think of doing this is to move the factory method into the collection itself. Something like this below. I could then add a new item by calling LineItems.New(...).
class Order
{
public LineItems LineItems { get; }
public class LineItems : IEnumerable<LineItem>
{
public void New(Product product, int quantity);
}
}
What are the pros/cons to each approach? Are there any gotchas with moving the factory method into a collection? We are currently trying to figure out the best way to implement a large domain model. We are concerned that some of these root aggregate models will get bloated with numerous factory methods and deletion methods such as RemoveLineItem(LineItem). Our thinking is that moving these factory methods to their collections helps organize the design and keeps the root aggregate less cluttered with methods. Any advice?
Thanks
One advantage of having the factory method on the AR directly is that it makes the AR aware of the changes and allows it to enforce it's invariants. Not only that, but because the method is aware of the internal state of the AR you may be able to reduce the number of arguments passed to the factory method (most useful when creating other related ARs).
E.g. registration = course.register(registrant) vs registration = new Registration(registrant, courseId)
Also, LineItem becomes an implementation detail so the client doesn't need to be aware of that class.
The fact that you are asking this question and are actually worried of having too many methods on your ARs is perhaps an indicator that you may be clustering together objects that do not belong together.
Do not lose sight of the AR main purpose: it's a transactionnal boundary allowing to protect invariants. If there's no invariant to protect then clustering may be unecessary or even undesirable.
I would strongly advise you to read Effective Aggregate Design by Vauhgn Vernon.
There is always that "law" of Demeter business :)
The aggregate root (AR) is going to be responsible for the integrity and invariants. It may be possible that you will have an invariant along the lines of "maximum order total of $50 and no more than 6 line items at any time". The collection will not have access to any of this information (well, perhaps the count). So the idea is that the AR handles these interactions.
If you are concerned with bloat or find yourself with ARs that are unwieldy it may indicate a problem with your design. Vaughn Vernon covers these scenarios quite nicely in his book. You really do want highly cohesive ARs and it can be tricky to identify them correctly. A couple of iterations may be required to get the most comfortable design.
So I would try and stick with Eric's advice and handle the interactions on the AR itself as far as is practically possible.
Related
We are starting a new project and we are keen to apply DDD principles. The project is using dotnet core, with EF core providing the persistence to SQL Server.
Initial view of the domain
I will use an example of a task tracker to illustrate our issues and challenges as this would follow a similar structure.
In the beginning we understand the following: -
We have a Project
Users can be associated to Projects
A Project has Workstreams
A Workstream has Tasks
Users can post Comments against a Task
A User is able to change the status of a Task (in progress, complete etc)
A Project, with associated Worksteams and Tasks is initially created from a Template
The initial design was a large cluster aggregate with the Project being the root aggregate holding a collection of ProjectUsers and Workstreams, Workstreams has a collection of Tasks etc etc
This approach was obviously going to lead to a number of contention and performance issues due to having to load the whole Project aggregate for any changes within that aggregate.
Rightly or wrongly our next revision was to break the Comments out of the aggregate and to form a new aggregate using Comment as a root. The motivation for this was that the business envisaged there being a significant number of Comments raised against each Task.
As each Comment is related to a Task a Comment needs to hold a foreign key back to the Task. However this isn't possible following the principle that you can only reference another aggregate via its root. To overcome this we broke the Task out to another aggregate. This also seemed to satisfy the need that the Tasks could be Completed by different people and again would reduce contention.
We then faced the same problem with the reference from the Task to the Workstream the Task belongs to leading to us creating a new Workstream aggregate with the foreign key in the Task back to the Workstream.
The result is: -
A Project aggregate which only contains a list of Users assigned to the project
A Workstream aggregate which contains a foreign key to the Project
A Task aggregate which contains a foreign key to the Project
A Comments aggregate which contains a foreign key back to the Task
The Project has a method to create a new instance of a Workstream, allow us to set the foreign key. I.e. slightly simplified version
public class Project()
{
string _name { get; private set;}
public Project(Name)
{
_name = Name;
}
public Workstream CreateWorkstream(string name)
{
return new Workstream(name, Id);
}
....+ Methods for managing user assignment to the project
}
In a similar way Workstream has a method to create a Task
public class Workstream()
{
string _name { get; private set;}
public int ProjectId { get; private set; }
public Workstream(Name, Id)
{
_name = Name;
_projectId = Id;
}
public Task CreateTask(string name)
{
return new Task(name, Id);
}
private readonly List<Task> _activities = new List<Task>();
public IEnumerable<Task> Activities => _activities.AsReadOnly();
}
The Activities property has been added purely to support navigation when using the entities to build the read models.
The team are not comfortable that this approach, something doesn't feel right. The main concerns are:-
it is felt that creating a project logically should be create project, add one or more workstreams to the project, add task to the workstreams, then let EF deal with persisting that object structure.
there is discomfort that the Project has to be created first and that the developer needs to ensure it is persisted so it gets an Id, ready for when the method to Create the template is called which is dependent on that Id for the foreign key. Is it okay to push the responsibility for this to a method in a domain service CreateProjectFromTemplate() to orchestrate the creation and persistence of the separate objects to each repository?
is the method to create the new Workstream even in the correct place?
the entities are used to form the queries (support by the navigation properties) which are used to create the read models. Maybe the concern is that the object structure is being influence by the how we need to present data in a read only
We are now at the point where we are just going around in circles and could really use some advice to give us some direction.
The team are not comfortable that this approach, something doesn't feel right.
That's a very good sign.
However this isn't possible following the principle that you can only reference another aggregate via its root.
You'll want to let go of this idea, it's getting in your way.
Short answer is that identifiers aren't references. Holding a copy of an identifier for another entity is fine.
Longer answer: DDD is based on the work of Eric Evans, who was describing a style that had worked for him on java projects at the beginning of the millennium.
The pain that he is strugging with is this: if the application is allowed object references to arbitrary data entities, then the behaviors of the domain end up getting scattered all over the code base. This increases the amount of work that you need to do to understand the domain, and it increases the cost of making (and testing!) change.
The reaction was to introduce a discipline; isolate the data from the application, by restricting the application's access to a few carefully constrained gate keepers (the "aggregate root" objects). The application can hold object references to the root objects, and can send messages to those root objects, but the application cannot hold a reference to, or send a message directly to, the objects hidden behind the api of the aggregate.
Instead, the application sends a message to the root object, and the root object can then forward the message to other entities within its own aggregate.
Thus, if we want to send a message to a Task inside of some Project, we need some mechanism to know which project to load, so that we can send the message to the project to send a message to the Task.
Effectively, this means you need a function somewhere that can take a TaskId, and return the corresponding ProjectId.
The simplest way to do this is to simply store the two fields together
{
taskId: 67890,
projectId: 12345
}
it is felt that creating a project logically should be create project, add one or more workstreams to the project, add task to the workstreams, then let EF deal with persisting that object structure.
Maybe the concern is that the object structure is being influence by the how we need to present data in a read only
There's a sort of smell here, which is that you are describing the relations of a data structure. Aggregates aren't defined by relations as much as they are changes.
Is it okay to push the responsibility for this to a method in a domain service CreateProjectFromTemplate
It's actually fairly normal to have a draft aggregate (which understands editing) that is separate from a Published aggregate (which understands use). Part of the point of domain driven design is to improve the business by noticing implicit boundaries between use cases and making them explicit.
You could use a domain service to create a project from a template, but in the common case, my guess is that you should do it "by hand" -- copy the state from the draft, and then send use that state to create the project; it avoids confusion when a publish and an edit are happening concurrently.
Here is a different perspective that might nudge you out of your deadlock.
I feel you are doing data modeling instead of real domain modeling. You are concerned with a relational model that will be directly persisted using ORM (EF) and less concerned with the actual problem domain. That is why you are concerned that the project will load too many things, or which objects will hold foreign keys to what.
An alternative approach would be to forget persistence for a moment and concentrate on what things might need what responsibilities. With responsibilities I don't mean technical things like save/load/search, but things that the domain defines. Like creating a task, completing a task, adding a comment, etc. This should give you an outline of things, like:
interface Task {
...
void CompleteBy(User user);
...
}
interface Project {
...
Workstream CreateWorkstreamFrom(Template template);
...
}
Also, don't concentrate too much on what is an Entity, Value Object, Aggregate Root. First, represent your business correctly in a way you and your colleagues are happy with. That is the important part. Try to talk to non-technical people about your model, see if the language you are using fits, whether you can have a conversation with it. You can decide later what objects are Entities or Value Objects, that part is purely technical and less important.
One other point: don't bind your model directly to an ORM. ORMs are blunt instruments that will probably force you into bad decisions. You can use an ORM inside your domain objects, but don't make them be a part of the ORM. This way you can do your domain the right way, and don't have to be afraid to load too much for a specific function. You can do exactly the right things for all the business functions.
I am building a system to manage person information. I have an ever growing aggregate root called Person. It now has hundreds of related objects, name, addresses, skills, absences, etc. My concern is that the Person AR is both breaking SRP and will create performance problems as more and more things (esp collections) get added to it.
I cannot see how with DDD to break this down into smaller objects. Taking the example of Absences. The Person has a collection of absence records (startdate, enddate, reason). These are currently managed through the Person (BookAbsence, ChangeAbsence, CancelAbsence). When adding absences I need to validate against all other absences, so I need an object which has access to the other absences in order to do this validation.
Am I missing something here? Is there another AR I have not identified? In the past I would have done this via an "AbsenceManager" service, but would like to do it using DDD.
I am fairly new to DDD, so maybe I am missing something.
Many Thanks....
The Absence chould be modeled as an aggregate. An AbsenceFactory is reposible for validating against other Absence s when you want to add a new Absence.
Code example:
public class AbsenceFactory {
private AbsenceRepository absenceRepository;
public Absence newAbsenceOf(Person person) {
List<Absence> current =
absenceRepository.findAll(person.getIdentifier());
//validate and return
}
}
You can find this pattern in the blue book (section 6.2 Factory if I'm not mistaken)
In other "modify" cases, you could introduce a Specification
public class SomeAbsenceSpecification {
private AbsenceRepository absenceRepository;
public SomeAbsenceSpecification(AbsenceRepository absenceRepository) {
this.absenceRepository=absenceRepository;
}
public boolean isSatisfiedBy(Absence absence) {
List<Absence> current =
absenceRepository.findAll(absence.getPersonIdentifier());
//validate and return
}
}
You can find this pattern in the blue book(section 9.2.3 Specification)
This is indeed what makes aggregate design so tricky. Ownership does not necessarily mean aggregation. One needs to understand the domain to be able to give a proper answer so we'll go with the good ol' Order example. A Customer would not have a collection of Order objects. The simplest rule is to think about deleting an AR. Those objects that could make sense in the absence of the AR probably do not belong on the AR. A Customer may very well have a collection of ActiveOrder objects, though. Of course there would be an invariant stating that a customer cannot be deleted if it has active orders.
Another thing to look out for is a bloated bounded context. It is conceivable that you could have one or more bounded contexts that have not been identified leading to a situation where you have an AR doing too much.
So in your case you may very well still be interested in the Absence should the Customer be deleted. In the case of an OrderLine it has no meaning without its Order. So no lifecycle of its own.
Hope that helps ever so slightly.
I am building a system to manage person information.
Are you sure that a simple CRUD application that edit/query RDBMS's tables via SQL, wouldn't be a cheaper approach?
If you can express the most of the business rules in term of data relations and table operations, you shouln't use DDD at all.
I have an ever growing aggregate root called Person.
If you actually have complex business rules, an ever growing aggregate is often a syntom of undefined (or wrongly defined) context boundaries.
I am working on an application where we try to use a Domain Model. The idea is to keep the business logic inside the objects in the Domain Model. Now a lot is done by objects subscribing to related objects to react to changes in them. This is done through PropertyChanged and CollectionChanged. This work OK except in the following:
Complex actions : Where a lot of changes should be handled as a group (and not individual property/collection changes). Should I / how can I 'build' transactions?
Persistency : I use NHibernate for persistency and this also uses the public property setters of classes. When NHibernate hits the property a lot of bussiness logic is done (which seems unnecessary). Should I use custom setters for NHibernate?
Overal it seems that pushing all logic in the domain model makes the domain model rather complex. Any ideas???
Here's a 'sample' problem (sorry for the crappy tooling i use):
You can see the Project my container and objects below it are reacting to each other by subscribing. Now changes to Network are done via NetworkEditor but this editor has no knowledge of NetworkData. This data might even be defined in a another assembly sometimes. The flow goes from user->NetworkEditor->Network->NetworkData and the all other object interested. This does not seem to scale.
I fear that combination of DDD and PropertyChanged/CollactionChanged events might now be the best idea. The problem is, that if you base your logic around these events it is extremely hard to manage the complexity as one PropertyChanged leads to another and another and soon enough you loose control.
Another reason why ProportyChanged events and DDD doesn't exactly fit is that in DDD every business operation should be as explicit as possible. Keep in mind that DDD is supposed to bring technical stuff into the world of business, not the other way around. And basing on the PropertyChanged/CollectionChanged doesn't seem very explicit.
In DDD the main goal is to keep consistency inside aggregate, in other words, you need to model the aggregate in such way, that whatever operation you invoke the aggregate is valid and consistent (if the operation succeeds of course).
If you build your model right that there's no need to worry about 'building' transaction - an operation on aggregate should be a transaction itself.
I don't know how your model looks like, but you might consider moving the responsibilities one level 'up' in the aggregate tree, quite possibly adding additional logical entities in the process, instead of relying on the PropertyChanged events.
Example:
Lets assume you have a collection of payments with statuses and whenever a payment changes, you want to recalculate the total balance of customer orders. Instead of subscribing changes to the payments collection and calling a method on customer when collection changes, you might do something like this:
public class CustomerOrder
{
public List<Payment> Payments { get; }
public Balance BalanceForOrder { get; }
public void SetPaymentAsReceived(Guid paymentId)
{
Payments.First(p => p.PaymentId == paymentId).Status = PaymentStatus.Received;
RecalculateBalance();
}
}
You might have noticed, that we recalculate the balance of single order and not the balance of entire customer - and in most cases that's ok as customer belongs to another aggregate and its balance can be simply queried when needed. That is exactly the part that shows this 'consistency only within aggregate' thingy - we don't care about any other aggregate at this point, we only deal with single order. If that's not ok for requirements, then the domain is modeled incorrectly.
My point is, that in DDD there's no single good model for every scenario - you have to understand how the business works to be successful.
If you take a look at the example above, you'll see that there is no need to 'build' the transaction - entire transaction is located in SetPaymentAsReceived method. In most cases, one user action should lead to one particular method on an entity withing aggregate - this method explicitly relates to business operation (of course this method may call other methods).
As for events in DDD, there is a concept of Domain Events, however these are not directly related with PropertyChanged/CollectionChanged technical events. Domain Events indicate the business operations (transactions) that have been completed by an aggregate.
Overal it seems that pushing all logic in the domain model makes the
domain model rather complex
Of course it does as it is supposed to be used for scenarios with complex business logic. However if the domain is modeled correctly then it is easy to manage and control this complexity and that's one of the advantages of DDD.
Added after providing example:
Ok, and what about creating an aggregate root called Project - when you build aggregate root from Repository, you can fill it with NetworkData and the operation might look like this:
public class Project
{
protected List<Network> networks;
protected List<NetworkData> networkDatas;
public void Mutate(string someKindOfNetworkId, object someParam)
{
var network = networks.First(n => n.Id == someKindOfNetworkId);
var someResult = network.DoSomething(someParam);
networkDatas.Where(d => d.NetworkId == someKindOfNetworkId)
.ToList()
.ForEach(d => d.DoSomething(someResult, someParam));
}
}
NetworkEditor would not operate on Network directly, rather through Project using NetworkId.
I'm looking for some advice on how much I should be concerned around avoiding the anemic domain model. We are just starting on DDD and are struggling with analysis paralysis regarding simple design decisions. The latest point we are sticking on is where certain business logic belongs, for example we have an Order object, which has properties like Status etc. Now say I have to perform a command like UndoLastStatus because someone made a mistake with an order, this is not as simple as just changing the Status as other information has to be logged and properties changed. Now in the real world this is a pure administration task. So the way I see it I have two options I can think of:
Option 1: Add the method to order so something like Order.UndoLastStatus(), whilst this kinda make sense, it doesn't really reflect the domain. Also Order is the primary object in the system and if everything involving the order is placed in the order class things could get out of hand.
Option 2: Create a Shop object, and with that have different services which represent differant roles. So I might have Shop.AdminService, Shop.DispatchService, and Shop.InventoryService. So in this case I would have Shop.AdminService.UndoLastStatus(Order).
Now the second option we have something which reflects the domain much more, and would allow developers to talk to business experts about similar roles that actually exists. But its also heading toward an anemic model. Which would be the better way to go in general?
Option 2 would lead to procedural code for sure.
Might be easier to develop, but much harder to maintain.
Now in the real world this is a pure administration task
"Administration" tasks should be private and invoked through public, fully "domain`ish" actions. Preferably - still written in easy to understand code that is driven from domain.
As I see it - problem is that UndoLastStatus makes little sense to domain expert.
More likely they are talking about making, canceling and filling orders.
Something along these lines might fit better:
class Order{
void CancelOrder(){
Status=Status.Canceled;
}
void FillOrder(){
if(Status==Status.Canceled)
throw Exception();
Status=Status.Filled;
}
static void Make(){
return new Order();
}
void Order(){
Status=Status.Pending;
}
}
I personally dislike usage of "statuses", they are automatically shared to everything that uses them - i see that as unnecessary coupling.
So I would have something like this:
class Order{
void CancelOrder(){
IsCanceled=true;
}
void FillOrder(){
if(IsCanceled) throw Exception();
IsFilled=true;
}
static Order Make(){
return new Order();
}
void Order(){
IsPending=true;
}
}
For changing related things when order state changes, best bet is to use so called domain events.
My code would look along these lines:
class Order{
void CancelOrder(){
IsCanceled=true;
Raise(new Canceled(this));
}
//usage of nested classes for events is my homemade convention
class Canceled:Event<Order>{
void Canceled(Order order):base(order){}
}
}
class Customer{
private void BeHappy(){
Console.WriteLine("hooraay!");
}
//nb: nested class can see privates of Customer
class OnOrderCanceled:IEventHandler<Order.Canceled>{
void Handle(Order.Canceled e){
//caveat: this approach needs order->customer association
var order=e.Source;
order.Customer.BeHappy();
}
}
}
If Order grows too huge, You might want to check out what bounded contexts are (as Eric Evans says - if he had a chance to wrote his book again, he would move bounded contexts to the very beginning).
In short - it's a form of decomposition driven by domain.
Idea is relatively simple - it is OK to have multiple Orders from different viewpoints aka contexts.
E.g. - Order from Shopping context, Order from Accounting context.
namespace Shopping{
class Order{
//association with shopping cart
//might be vital for shopping but completely irrelevant for accounting
ShoppingCart Cart;
}
}
namespace Accounting{
class Order{
//something specific only to accounting
}
}
But usually enough domain itself avoids complexity and is easily decomposable if You listen to it closely enough. E.g. You might hear from experts terms like OrderLifeCycle, OrderHistory, OrderDescription that You can leverage as anchors for decomposition.
NB: Keep in mind - I got zero understanding about Your domain.
It's quite likely that those verbs I'm using are completely strange to it.
I would be guided by the GRASP principles. Apply the Information Expert design principle, that is you should assign the responsibility to the class that naturally has the most information required to fulfill the change.
In this case, since changing the order status involves other entities, I would make each of these low-level domain objects support a method to apply the change with respect to itself. Then also use a domain service layer as you describe in option 2, that abstracts the whole operation, spanning multiple domain objects as needed.
Also see the Facade pattern.
I think having a method like UndoLastStatus on the Order class feels a bit wrong because the reasons for its existence are in a sense outside of the scope of an order. On the other hand, having a method which is responsible for changing the status of an order, Order.ChangeStatus, fits nicely as a domain model. The status of an order is a proper domain concept and changing that status should be done through the Order class, since it owns the data associated with an order status - it is the responsibility of the Order class to keep itself consistent and in a proper state.
Another way to think of it is that the Order object is what's persisted to the database and it is the 'last stop' for all changes applied to an Order. It is easier to reason about what a valid state for an order might be from the perspective of an Order rather than from the perspective of an external component. This is what DDD and OOP are all about, making it easier for humans to reason about code. Furthermore, access to private or protected members may be required to execute a state change, in which case having the method be on the order class is a better option. This is one of the reasons why anemic domain models are frowned upon - they shift the responsibility of keeping state consistent away from the owning class, thereby breaking encapsulation among other things.
One way to implement a more specific operation such as UndoLastStatus would be to create an OrderService which exposes the domain and is how external components operate upon the domain. Then you can create a simple command object like this:
class UndoLastStatusCommand {
public Guid OrderId { get; set; }
}
An the OrderService would have a method to process that command:
public void Process(UndoLastStatusCommand command) {
using (var unitOfWork = UowManager.Start()) {
var order = this.orderRepository.Get(command.OrderId);
if (order == null)
throw some exception
// operate on domain to undo last status
unitOfWork.Commit();
}
}
So now the domain model for Order exposes all of the data and behavior that correspond to an Order, but the OrderService, and the service layer in general, declare the different kind of operations that are performed on an order and expose the domain for utilization by external components, such as the presentation layer.
Also consider looking into the concept of domain events which considers anemic domain models and ways of improving them.
It sounds like you are not driving this domain from tests. Take a look at the work of Rob Vens, especially his work on exploratory modeling, time inversion and active-passive.
I'm struggling with aggregates and aggregate roots. I have a natural aggregate root which works for about 60% of the user requests. I.e. those requests naturally apply to the aggregate root.
Within my aggregate I have another entity which can only exist as a member of the aggregate root. Users, however, will be told about this other entity object. It will sometimes make sense, conceptually, for users to operate on this non-aggregate root object directly.
So, I think I have a couple of options:
They can they both be aggregate roots depending on which operation is being requested by the user.
All operations have to go through the top level aggregate root.
Note that the top level aggregate root will hold a collection of this other entity.
Example:
Main aggregate root: Car
Second entity: Seat (a Car has either 2 or 4 seats depending on type). In my domain seats can only exist as part of a car.
Most operations in the domain are at the Car level. So that will be a good candidate for aggregate root. However, (and I'm struggling for examples here), some operations will be at the seat level, e.g. SpillCoffee, ChangeFabric, Clean....
Can Seat and Car both be aggregate roots? Or should I always start with Car?
Thanks
The idea of an aggregate is to guarantee consistency, being the root responsible for data integrity and forcing invariants.
Suppose there's a rule like "The fabric of all seats must be the same", or ""you can only spill coffee on the seat if there's someone inside the car". It will be much harder to enforce these, once the clients will be able to change the fabric separately, or these invariants will need to be forced outside (danger zone).
IMHO, if integrity or forcing invariants is not an issue, then aggregates are not really needed. But, if it is necessary, my advice is to start everything with the car. But always think of the model. If there are invariants like these, then who enforces these invariants? Then try passing this idea to the code, and everything should be fine.
Probably you need some deeper knowledge of some aspect of the domain model. This question shows that you are about to invent a way to organize the entities to supply the system, when, ideally, this kind of questions are already answered before implementation.
When this pops out only on the system implementation, you whether go back to review the domain or you discovered some fragility whose feedback could - and should - aggregate changes on related details of the business to make the domain richer and better modeled.
In the car example, I used the approach of two aggregates who correlate different contexts. The first would be the "car has a seat" approach, and in this aggregate the possible actions for "seat" would be just the ones that make sense to "seat as part of a car". Example: Clean.
The second aggregate would be in the context of "seat", and there would be the possible actions and configurations for seat as a standalone. Example: ChangeFabric, ColorList. This way, the aggregate "car" has "seat", but the clients can know seat on the context that makes sense. Which is dangerous, like said by samuelcarrijo on previous post. If the modifications between contexts affects the domain integrity, you lost all the aggregate concept.
In the case of a shopping cart with an cart and line items I have both of those as aggregate roots since I often modify them independently.
public class Cart : IAggregateRoot
{
public List<LineItem> LineItems {get;}
}
public class LineItems : IAggregateRoot
{
public List<LineItem> LineItems {get;}
}
However, I have a separate bounded context for orders and in this case I only need to have one aggregate root since I no longer need to modify the line items independently.
public class Order : IAggregateRoot
{
public List<LineItem> LineItems {get;}
}
The other option is to have a way of looking up the aggregate root from a child ID.
Car GetCarFromSeatID(guid seatID)