Putting AutoMapper profile into a class with a handler

[siberianguy]

As we use a specific Command/Query class for each handler, AutoMapper configurations are not reused by multiple handlers. And if AutoMapper configuration is specific to a handler, why don't we store it in the same file (like, Command, Profile, Handler)?

I feel a little uncomfortable about the indirect nature of AutoMapper as when I look at the handler's code and I'm not sure what's going on. Are there any complex mappings? Anything significant besides dumb mappings? I feel like moving the mapping configuration into the file with handler and command/query would make it a little bit more clear.

Why do we store all the mappings for a feature together? Do they share any common logic? Doesn't seem to be the case. In a way, I feel like grouping all the mappings together is a violation of the idea of grouping things by feature/function/etc. instead of grouping by type (i. e. all the mappings go together).

I'm debating myself about it in my current project, was curious what you Jimmy think about it.

[jbogard]

Hmmm that's interesting, you certainly could split by requests instead of overall feature. I like it!

But I had no other reason why I had a single profile per feature folder.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alexander Sidorov < notifications@github.com> wrote:

As we use a specific Command/Query class for each handler, AutoMapper configurations are not reused by multiple handlers. And if AutoMapper configuration is specific to a handler, why don't we store it in the same file (like, Command, Profile, Handler)?

I feel a little uncomfortable about the indirect nature of AutoMapper as when I look at the handler's code and I'm not sure what's going on. Are there any complex mappings? Anything significant besides dumb mappings? I feel like moving the mapping configuration into the file with handler and command/query would make it a little bit more clear.

Why do we store all the mappings for a feature together? Do they share any common logic? Doesn't seem to be the case. In a way, I feel like grouping all the mappings together is a violation of the idea of grouping things by feature/function/etc. instead of grouping by type (i. e. all the mappings go together).

I'm debating myself about it in my current project, was curious what you Jimmy think about it.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/jbogard/ContosoUniversityCore/issues/19, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMmVhTYTsgRD05ZyyuyhWDu6y9uTzks5shVcVgaJpZM4PTYMa .

[siberianguy]

What if we go even further and not create a Profile class (it does seem like an overkill for simple scenarios) and just put the AutoMapper code somewhere in the handler class (i. e. constructor or even the handler itself)?

[jbogard]

What would that look like? You've got some limitations that it's static configuration (similar to validators). I think you'd probably still have to create a class for a profile at some point.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Alexander Sidorov < notifications@github.com> wrote:

What if we go even further and not create a Profile class (it does seem like an overkill for simple scenarios) and just put the AutoMapper code somewhere in the handler class (i. e. constructor or even the handler itself)?

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/jbogard/ContosoUniversityCore/issues/19#issuecomment-328584929, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGYMmMNQEkPp3xBA8R9Jc50kxU-D213ks5shWC4gaJpZM4PTYMa .

[siberianguy]

I thought there was a way to dynamically add mappings using static registration. I wanted to put this code into handler's constructor hoping AutoMapper would smartly register the mapping only once. Never checked it, so based on your answer I assume it's not possible (and it would be a little dirty anyway).

Adding a Profile class is not a big deal but it feels a little silly as we generate more lines of code to use the tool that is supposed to save those lines of code (it would look especially ridiculous for one-line mappers). And I realise AutoMapper is more than a tool to save lines of code, but still...