Coffee | Coding | Computers | Church | What does it all mean?
Software Development
“Not all design is architectural” is widely repeated. Non-circular answers to “which design is architectural?” are less common. Here's one:
A design or decision is architectural if it impacts the system as a Whole, not merely in part.
(from @visarch 2004, http://www.bredemeyer.com/pdf_files/WhitePapers/ArchitectureAsBusinessCompetency.PDF )
if you form post html form fields:
<li>
<label for="name">Your name<span>*</span></label>
<input type="text" id="name" name="Name" />
</li>
<li>
<label for="phoneNumber">Telephone<span>*</span></label>
<input type="tel" id="phoneNumber" name="PhoneNumber" />
</li>to a Controller using the [FromForm] attribute, AspNet will modelbind the form fields to your parameters by matching the name= attribute of the input elements to Property names on the parameter class:
class MyController : Controller
{
public IActionResult Index([FromForm]Contact contact){ ... }
}
// ----
public class Contact
{
public string Name {get;set;}
public string PhoneNumber {get;set;}
}But what about model binding an array — for instance, if you have a list of question inputs, and want to store the answers in a list?
If you name each field as if it were an array element:
<fieldset id="q1">
<label class="question">Question 1</label>
<ul class="form-style">
<li>
<input type="radio" id="c1" name="answers[0]" value="@c1"/>
<label for="c1">@c1</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="radio" id="c2" name="answers[0]" value="@c2"/>
<label for="c2">@c2</label>
</li>
</ul>
</fieldset>
<fieldset id="q2">
<label class="question">Question 1?</label>
<ul class="form-style">
<li>
<input type="radio" id="b1" name="answers[1]" value="@b1"/>
<label for="b1">@b1</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="radio" id="b2" name="answers[1]" value="@b2"/>
<label for="b2">@b2</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="radio" id="b3" name="answers[1]" value="@b3"/>
<label for="b3">@b3</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="radio" id="b4" name="answers[1]" value="@b4"/>
<label for="b4">@b4</label>
</li>
</ul>
</fieldset>then AspNet will bind the submitted fields named answers[0], answers[1], ... to an array Property in your class with the matching name:
public class Questions
{
public string[] Answers {get;set;}
}The .Net Core Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration package includes the ConfigurationBinder.Get<>() method which can read a config file and bind name-value entries to a class. This gives you strongly typed configuration:
public class FromTo
{
public string From { get; init; }
public string To { get; init; }
}The method is an extension method for Configuration so you can call it straight off a Configuration instance. In an Asp.Net Startup.cs class, for instance:
services.AddSingleton(
s=>Configuration
.GetSection("fromto").Get<FromTo>());will result in your services collection knowing to provide an FromTo class with the Properties populated from the configuration entries, matched by section:propertyname :
{
"fromto:from": "[email protected]",
"fromto:to": "[email protected]"
}or if you use secrets:
cd <projectdirectory>
dotnet user-secrets init
dotnet user-secrets set fromto:from [email protected]
dotnet user-secrets set fromto:to [email protected]That works great for the usual primitives - string, numbers, boolean — but what about binding an Array?
public class FromTo
{
public string From { get; init; }
public string To[] { get; init; }
}the From field is still bound but the To field silently fails and results in a null value.
The magic trick is to add a colon-separated number suffix to each setting name:
{
"fromto:from": "[email protected]",
"fromto:to:0": "[email protected]",
"fromto:to:1": "[email protected]",
"fromto:to:2": "[email protected]",
}Now Configuration.GetSection("fromto").Get<FromTo>() will successfully bind all 3 rows for "fromto:to into the public string To[] array.
You need 3 hats. That might mean 3 people, or 3 groups of people, or 1 or 2 people wearing more than 1 hat:
1) Do you have someone to wear each of the 3 hats?
A: I don't have someone who knows what they want.
A: I don't have someone who knows how to provide what I want
A: I don't know whether we have enough money.
This sounds very simple. It is not. Many many conflicts in personal life, disastrous work projects, and famous cockups in politics follow from the fact that helping person A to express what they want well enough so that person B can deliver it for them is a skill that takes time to learn.
Solution: hire a Business Analyst to help person A to express what they want and to express it as requirements that persons A and B can both agree they understand and are happy with
1) Does anyone involved have previous experience of how easy it is is to trip up on getting someone to express what they want correctly and in enough detail for someone to deliver it?
A: No
This sounds very simple. It is. The only two things that can possibly go wrong are:
1) Can the person who knows what they want prioritise what they want and break it down into small enough chunks so that the person who knows how to deliver can confidently say, of at least the top 2 items, that they can do them in less than a week or so each?
A: No
You may think that offering a price for a job is what any experienced tradesman should be able to do. You may, or may not, be right. There are 3 main risks:
1) Make sure you have reviewed each of the 2 to 3 times multipliers for inexperience in Requirements and Prioritisation.
2) Do you have someone on the project with enough experience to estimate a budget?
A: Yes
A: No
Note you are not asking, “is the thing we are delivering good?” You are asking “is the way we are working good?” The two things are closely linked of course, both in the positives and the negatives.
1) Did you, in fact, do a review after 1 to 2 weeks?
2) Did you, in fact, choose at least one thing to improve?
3) If you are now 4 weeks into a project have you, in fact, improved the things you intended to improve.
1) Did you make a risk list?
A: No
2) Do you have someone on the project with prior experience in managing risk?
A: No
3) Do the things you haved planned to minimise risk really minimise risk or are they just things you can write down even though they might have no effect in minimising the risk?