BC-7772 introduce ddd objects #5167
Conversation
…l that is easy usable, but optional.
| describe('When value object with modification is created.', () => { | ||
| const setup = () => { | ||
| class Name extends ValueObject<string> { | ||
| protected modified(value: string): string { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Replacing the boilerplate with array of functions that can be execute will improve the usability
modifications: [this.removeWithspacesAtBeginning, this.truncatedToLength4]
validations: [TypeGuard.isString, this.isValidLength]
In this case it is also easy to use same hooks for different value objects. But it is harder to implement with ts. We should look togehter into it.
| }); | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| describe('By usage of primitive array as value object', () => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"of array with primitive values"
| // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-unsafe-return | ||
| return value; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
| } | ||
|
|
||
| /** Use this method with override for add modifications, before execute the validation. */ | ||
| protected modified(value: T): T { |
| export abstract class ValueObject<T extends ValueObjectTyp> { | ||
| public readonly value: T; | ||
|
|
||
| constructor(value: T) { |
|
|
|
||
| type ValueObjectTyp = PrimitiveType | PrimitiveTypeArray; | ||
|
|
||
| export abstract class ValueObject<T extends ValueObjectTyp> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ergibt es überhaupt Sinn eine abstrakte Klasse für Value Objects einzuführen? Geht uns dadurch nicht ganz viel Fachlichkeit verloren, wenn zB der Wert immer Value heißt? Was an der abstrakten Klasse bietet wirklich einen Mehrwert beim entwickeln?
Description
Links to Tickets or other pull requests
Changes
Datasecurity
Deployment
New Repos, NPM pakages or vendor scripts
Approval for review
generate-client:serverwas executed in vue frontend and changes were tested and put in a PR with the same branch name.