# Curls, clouds and code

A blog by Corstian Boerman
Corstian Boerman

# More transparent command to event transformation

In a previous post I covered some ideas about the implementation of event sourced aggregates. A pressing issue that came to my attention is the way that the structure previously covered does not preserve type information on the commands, therefore making life of those using the domain unnecessarily difficult.

To recap what had previously been implemented:

public interface ICommand<TState>
where TState : Aggregate<TState>
{
public IEvent<TState> Validate(TState state);
}

public interface IEvent<TState>
where TState : Aggregate<TState>
{
public void Apply(TState state);
}


Though these interfaces work well in a situation where the sole role of the event is to be persisted and applied to the internal state, it becomes rather difficult when dealing with user interaction. A hypothetical example about how the domain would currently be consumed.

IEvent<T> @event = User.Validate(new UserCreation.CreateUser {
Email = "john.doe@example.com"
});


The inherent difficulty here is knowing the type of the return value, which is known to the command, but not necessarily to those implementing the command. Therefore we'll need a more transparent approach to handle the command to event transformation.

Type information can be added in a rather simple way on the command interface itself. Since the command is the type responsible for the translation into events, it makes sense to have it expose information about the return types.

public interface ICommand<TState, TEvent>
where TState : Aggregate<TState>
where TEvent : IEvent<TState>
{
public TEvent Validate(TState state);
}


Though the downside of this approach is an additional piece of boilerplate code, the benefits by far outweigh these considerations.

In order to support the command to event transformation of this newly created command we'll also need to implement these on the aggregate itself.

public abstract class Aggregate<T>
where T : Aggregate<T>
{
public IEvent<T> Validate(ICommand<T> @command)
=> @command.Validate((T)this);

public E Validate<E>(ICommand<T, E> @command)
where E : IEvent<T>
=> command.Validate((T)this);

public void Apply(IEvent<T> @event) => @event.Apply((T)this);
}


After modifying the command to reflect this new interface including type information the way we're consuming the domain now looks like this from the perspective of an unit test:

[Fact]
public void UserCreationTest()
{
var user = new User();

var createUserCommand = new UserCreation.CreateUser
{
Name = "John Doe",
};

// Properly recognized to be of type UserCreated rather than IEvent<User>
var userCreatedEvent = user.Validate(createUserCommand);

user.Apply(userCreatedEvent);

Assert.Equal("John Doe", user.Name);
}


Therefore the way one could consume the domain now is as follows:

UserCreation.UserCreated @event = User.Validate(new UserCreation.CreateUser {
Email = "john.doe@example.com"
});


By providing the explicit domain event resulting from the command it becomes much more easier to implement public APIs on top of the domain.

## Bonus: Breaking Unit Tests

Changing the interface of the CreateUser command from that of ICommand<TState> to ICommand<TState, TEvent> only breaks half of the unit tests previously implemented, just like the following one:

[Fact]
public void NameCannotBeNullOrWhiteSpace()
{
ICommand<User> command = new CreateUser();

Assert.Throws<Exception>(() => @command.Validate(new User()));
}


The reason for this is the explicit cast to ICommand<User>, which is required to show the explicitly implemented Validate method. Fixing the test however is super easy; we'll just have to let it reflect the currently used command interface.

Hey there, I hope you enjoyed this post of mine. If you did, consider sharing this with that one friend who'd also appreciate this. Comments are gone for the time being, but if you feel like discussing something more in-depth, send me a message on Twitter, or just email me.

- Corstian