fix CreateOrderPayment get user order from UC #155 #156
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes involve the refactoring of the Changes
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Outside diff range and nitpick comments (5)
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application/UseCases/Payment/CreatePaymentUseCase.cs (2)
22-22: Good implementation of the new use case.The change from
_orderRepository.GetAsync(orderId)to_getOrderDetailsUseCase.Execute(orderId)is consistent with the constructor modification and maintains the existing logic flow. This change reinforces the separation of concerns and adheres to the CQRS pattern.Consider wrapping the
Executecall in a try-catch block to handle any potential exceptions from theIGetOrderDetailsUseCaseimplementation. This would improve error handling and provide more specific error messages. For example:Order? order; try { order = await _getOrderDetailsUseCase.Execute(orderId); } catch (Exception ex) { throw new ApplicationException($"Failed to retrieve order details: {ex.Message}", ex); }
Line range hint
1-38: Overall excellent improvements in adherence to DDD, SOLID, and Clean Architecture principles.The refactoring has significantly enhanced the class structure:
- It better defines the boundaries between domain concepts (orders and payments), aligning with DDD principles.
- It improves adherence to SOLID principles, particularly SRP and DIP.
- It maintains a clear separation of concerns and dependency direction, consistent with Clean Architecture.
The continued use of the factory method pattern for payment gateways and the raising of domain events are good practices.
Consider enhancing the domain event handling by introducing a domain service or application service for raising events. This would further decouple the payment creation logic from event publishing. For example:
public class CreatePaymentUseCase : ICreatePaymentUseCase { private readonly IPaymentGatewayFactoryMethod _paymentGatewayFactory; private readonly IGetOrderDetailsUseCase _getOrderDetailsUseCase; private readonly IPaymentEventService _paymentEventService; public CreatePaymentUseCase( IPaymentGatewayFactoryMethod paymentGatewayFactory, IGetOrderDetailsUseCase getOrderDetailsUseCase, IPaymentEventService paymentEventService) { _paymentGatewayFactory = paymentGatewayFactory; _getOrderDetailsUseCase = getOrderDetailsUseCase; _paymentEventService = paymentEventService; } public async Task<Domain.Entities.Payment?> Execute(Guid orderId, PaymentType paymentType) { // ... existing code ... if (payment != null) { await _paymentEventService.RaisePaymentCreatedEvent(payment); } return payment; } }This approach would improve testability and allow for more flexible event handling in the future.
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Payments/CreatePaymentUseCaseTest.cs (3)
2-2: LGTM! Consider adding XML documentation.The changes correctly implement the shift from
IOrderRepositorytoIGetOrderDetailsUseCase. The new dependency is properly injected in the constructor.Consider adding XML documentation to the
_getOrderDetailsUseCasefield to improve code readability:/// <summary> /// Mock object for the IGetOrderDetailsUseCase interface. /// </summary> private readonly Mock<IGetOrderDetailsUseCase> _getOrderDetailsUseCase;Also applies to: 13-13, 15-16, 22-23
62-63: LGTM! Consider using a consistent naming convention.The test has been correctly updated to use
_getOrderDetailsUseCase.Execute. This change accurately reflects the new architecture using the use case pattern.For consistency with C# naming conventions, consider renaming the local variable in the setup:
_getOrderDetailsUseCase.Setup(useCase => useCase.Execute(It.IsAny<Guid>())) .ReturnsAsync((Order?)default);This aligns with the convention of using descriptive parameter names in lambda expressions.
Line range hint
80-84: LGTM! Consider using object initializer syntax.The test has been correctly updated to use
_getOrderDetailsUseCase.Execute. This change accurately reflects the new architecture using the use case pattern.For improved readability, consider using object initializer syntax:
_getOrderDetailsUseCase.Setup(useCase => useCase.Execute(It.IsAny<Guid>())) .ReturnsAsync(new Order { PaymentId = new PaymentId(Guid.NewGuid()) });This makes the code more concise and easier to read.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application/UseCases/Payment/CreatePaymentUseCase.cs (2 hunks)
- tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Payments/CreatePaymentUseCaseTest.cs (5 hunks)
Additional context used
Path-based instructions (2)
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application/UseCases/Payment/CreatePaymentUseCase.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Payments/CreatePaymentUseCaseTest.cs (1)
Pattern
**/*.cs: Validate all files and structures against Domain Driven Design, SOLID and Clean Architecture principles.
Additional comments not posted (3)
src/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application/UseCases/Payment/CreatePaymentUseCase.cs (1)
12-17: Excellent refactoring to improve separation of concerns!The replacement of
IOrderRepositorywithIGetOrderDetailsUseCaseis a positive change that aligns well with SOLID principles and Clean Architecture:
- It adheres to the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP) by delegating the specific task of retrieving order details to a dedicated use case.
- It follows the Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP) by depending on the abstraction
IGetOrderDetailsUseCase.- It enhances the separation of concerns, a key aspect of Clean Architecture, by clearly defining the boundary between use cases.
This change will likely improve the maintainability and testability of the code.
tests/FIAP.TechChallenge.ByteMeBurger.Application.Test/UseCases/Payments/CreatePaymentUseCaseTest.cs (2)
43-44: LGTM! Correct implementation of the new use case.The test has been properly updated to use
_getOrderDetailsUseCase.Executeinstead of the previous repository method. This change accurately reflects the new architecture using the use case pattern.
Line range hint
1-96: Great job aligning with Clean Architecture and SOLID principles!The changes in this file demonstrate a good adherence to Clean Architecture and SOLID principles:
- The shift from
IOrderRepositorytoIGetOrderDetailsUseCasealigns with the Dependency Inversion Principle, as theCreatePaymentUseCasenow depends on a higher-level abstraction.- This change also supports the Single Responsibility Principle, as the responsibility of retrieving order details is now encapsulated in a separate use case.
- The tests remain focused and independent, covering the main scenarios effectively.
These modifications enhance the modularity and maintainability of the codebase while preserving the existing test coverage.
Terraform Cloud Plan Output |
No description provided.