Tag Archives: NHibernate
Don’t Unit Test NHibernate: Use Generic Repository

I was reading this stack overflow question: How can I solve this: Nhibernate Querying in an n-tier architecture?

The author is trying to abstract away NHibernate and is being counseled rather heavily not to do so. In the comments there are a couple of blog entries by Ayende on this topic:

The false myth of encapsulating data access in the DAL

Architecting in the pit of doom the evils of the repository abstraction layer

Ayende is pretty down on abstracting away NHIbernate. The answers on StackOverflow push the questioner toward just standing up an in-memory Sqlite instance and executing the tests against that.

The Sqlite solution is pretty painful with complex databases. It requires that you set up an enormous amount of data that isn’t really germane to your test in order to satisfy FK and other constraints. The ceremony of creating this extra data clutters the test and obscures the intent. To test a query for employees who are managers, I’d have to create Departments and Job Titles and Salary Types etc., etc., etc.. Dis-like.

What problem am I trying to solve?

In the .NET space developers tend to want to use LINQ to access, filter, and project data. NHibernate (partially) supports LINQ via an extension method off of ISession. Because ISession.Query<T> is an extension method, it is not stubbable with free mocking tools such as RhinoMocks, Moq, or my favorite: NSubstitute. This is why people push you to use the Sqlite solution—because the piece of the underlying interface that you want to use most of the time is not built for stubbing.

I think that a fundamental problem with NHibernate is that it is trying to serve 2 masters. On the one hand it wants to be a faithful port of Hibernate. On the other, it wants to be a good citizen for .NET. Since .NET has LINQ and Java doesn’t, the support for LINQ is shoddy and doesn’t really fit in well the rest of the API design. LINQ support is an “add-on” to the Java api, and not a first-class citizen. I think this is why it was implemented as an extension method instead of as part of the ISession interface.

I firmly disagree with Ayende on Generic Repository. However, I do agree with some of the criticisms he offers against specific implementations. I think his arguments are a little bit of straw man, however. It is possible to do Generic Repository well.

I prefer to keep my IRepository interface simple:

    public interface IRepository : IDisposable
        IQueryable<T> Find<T>() where T: class;

        T Get<T>(object key) where T : class;

        void Save<T>(T value) where T: class;

        void Delete<T>(T value) where T: class;

        ITransaction BeginTransaction();

        IDbConnection GetUnderlyingConnection();


Here are some of my guidelines when using a Generic Repository abstraction:

  • My purpose in using Generic Repository is not to “hide” the ORM, but
    • to ease testability.
    • to provide a common interface for accessing multiple types of databases (e.g., I have implemented IRepository against relational and non-relational databases) Most of my storage operations follow the Retrieve-Modify-Persist pattern, so Find<T>, Get<T>, and Save<T> support almost everything I need.
  • I don’t expose my data models outside of self-contained operations, so Attach/Detach are not useful to me.
  • If I need any of the other advanced ORM features, I’ll use the ORM directly and write an appropriate integration test for that functionality.
    • I don’t use Attach/Detach, bulk operations, Flush, Futures, or any other advanced features of the ORM in my IRepository interface. I prefer an interface that is clean, simple, and useful in 95% of my scenarios.
  • I implemented Find<T> as an IQueryable<T>. This makes it easy to use the Specification pattern to perform arbitrary queries. I wrote a specification package that targets LINQ for this purpose.
    • In production code it is usually easy enough to append where-clauses to the exposed IQueryable<T>
    • For dynamic user-driven queries I will write a class that will convert a flat request contract into the where-clause needed by the operation.
  • I expose the underlying connection so that if someone needs to execute a sproc or raw sql there is a convenient way of doing that.
The Value of Features of ORM’s

At Redacted Associates, we’ve been having a discussion about whether we should use the Generic Repository pattern on top of NHibernate. We have a simple IRepository interface as follows:

For my part, I like don’t like to spend a lot of time worrying about the way my ORM interacts with the database. I prefer to spend my design-energy around how to architect the application such that interacting with the database is a minor implementation detail, almost an afterthought even.

At least one of my co-workers disagrees, and has given a really good argument for a specific case when using direct features in NHibernate saved some work. This discussion has spurred me to ask myself “what are the most important features of an ORM?” and “at what level of abstraction should we work with an ORM?” There’s no way to answer these questions without identifying your purpose in using the ORM to begin with. With that in mind, I decided to categorize the features we all look for in an ORM and compare them to our Generic Repository implementation.

ORM features basically fall into one of 3 categories:

  1. Queryability

    • Linq Provider

      In .NET, Linq remains the most discoverable way to query an ORM. NHibernate has the QueryOver api, but I find it to be hopelessly unreadable anything but the simplest query.

    • Specification pattern

      The easiest specification pattern in .NET relies on Linq. It’s a very nice way to allow api clients to construct their own queries without concerning themselves with database schema details. In an SOA architecture, it provides a flat contract to support complex query results. It minimizes the number of service methods because you don’t have to write GetCustomersByNameAndCityAndProduct.

    • Fully mapped relationships between objects.

      I depend on having a fully expressed query model to use for linq queries. Getting the right data to work with often involves a number of database relationships and it’s impossible to predict when some new object or property will be needed to satisfy a query. It’s easiest to ensure that the model fully expresses the database and that all fields and relationships are present in the model. The model should fully and accurately express the database schema.

    • Id navigation properties.

      Id navigation properties as a companion to the object relationship properties are really handy. They can reduce query-syntax clutter quite a bit. Employee.ManagerId is cleaner than Employee.Manager.Id. Some ORM’s will pull back the whole Manager to get the Id. I hate that.

    • Full support for all relationship types (one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many).

      These relationships are standard in relational db’s. Any Object-Relational Mapper should support them.

    • Lazy Loading
  2. Behavior

    • Cascade mappings.

      This is not personally a value to me, but I recognize that in some cases it’s useful.

    • Trigger-behavior.

      This sort of behavior is useful when you want the ORM to handle things like audit fields, soft deletes, or log table entries.

    • Sql-Efficiencies.

      Sometimes pulling back large datasets and mapping them to in-memory objects can be very expensive. If performance is a concern, it’s nice to be able to have the ORM optimize the operation. NHibernate’s “Merge” operation is a good example of this.

  3. Testability

    • In-memory testability
    • Mockable/Stubbable

I composed the following table listing the features we are seeking from an ORM and how each tool fares against our needs.

Entity Framework
Generic Repository
Micro ORMs
Linq Provider
Not Fully Implemented Fully Implemented Depends on ORM No
Specification Pattern
Easy to implement against partially implemented Linq provider. Hard otherwise. Easy to implement. Depends on ORM No
Can Fully Map Relationships
Yes Yes Depends on ORM No
Id Navigation Properties
Not without extreme (and not very useful) hacks Yes Depends on ORM Yes
Full support for relationship types
One-to-one doesn’t work well. Results in N+1 queries on one side of the relationship * Haven’t tested this. Depends on ORM Sort of
Lazy Loading
Yes Yes Depends on ORM No
Cascade Mappings
Yes Yes Depends on ORM No
Trigger Behavior
Yes Yes Depends on ORM No
Sql Efficiences
Yes Yes Depends on ORM No
In-memory testability
Yes, provided you use SqlLite. Yes, provided you use SqlCompact edition—or you can interface your DbContext. Yes No
Mostly. Some of the methods you use on ISession are in fact extension methods. .Query is an extension method which is problematic since that’s an obvious one I’d like to stub. Mostly. Methods such as .Include() are extension methods with no in-memory counterpart. If I really need to use .Include() I’ll write an integration test instead. Yes No
  • ISession.Query is an extension method. Not testable.
  • ISession.QueryOver is a difficult api for complex queries, especially those involving groups.
  • Automappings make map-by-configuration easier.
  • No (current) support for convention-based configuration.
  • No Merge operation.
  • Generic repository does not give you direct access to methods like ISession.Merge.
  • You have two ways of dealing with this:
    1. Use ISession (or DbContext) directly.
    2. You can inherit or adapt the IRepository interface to provide the other methods.
Fantastic for quick and dirty CRUD on single tables. Not so great otherwise.



My advice is to use Generic Repository except when you need to get close to the metal of your ORM for some fine-grained control over your data access.