UnitOfWork | support repository , unit of work patterns | Database library

We need to use data-attribute for the option fields so we could filter, hence the repair list has to be manually filled. Follow the steps below;

1. Add the class team-select to Teams dropdown. We will use this to bind our event later.

Your classes TodoItem and TodoList are fairly simple and have one responsibility (Single responsibility Principle). And these classes do not have any code that can pollute their single responsibility. I mean there is no logic for logging or other responsibilities in these classes. So it is okay. Read another great post about Single Responsibility Principle.

But it looks like your code in solution 1 will not save any items as your item will be added to IReadOnlyList Items.

I like that repository has great separation of concerns. I mean that repository is here like simple collection of items. We can make analogy with List, that List does not have Save() method. Responsibility of saving item is delegated to _unitOfWork. And this is also great separation of concerns.

You can think about unit testing as a safety net.

So, the answer highly depends on what sort of safety net do you want to have, like:

1. do not alter the input rather pass it as it is to the underlying component
2. wrapper calls the right method (wrapper's Update should not call wrapped's Delete)
3. wrapper calls only the expected method on the dependency and nothing else ...

In other words if there is a chance in the future that this thin wrapper become thicker then you want to make sure it happens by breaking some test(s). If a code can sneak in without notice then it can cause harm.

Your level of paranoia will determine how much test is enough :)

Just looked at the documentation. It looks like the DatePicker does not contain the e.target.value and instead uses a function call to return value.

Check that the DefaultConnection points to the correct database in appsettings.json AND appsettings.Developer.json if that file exists.

I'm also assuming userManager.CreateAsync works correctly and is just part of AspNetCore.Identity.

My next advice would be to not split your models / data access layer across two projects like this. Instead create a Shared Project and reference your other projects from that.

In Visual Studio, this can be done by right clicking the project, selecting add, choose Project Reference and check the projects to reference.

In here you can manage your entire data access layer (DAL), and reference it in any other projects without need to worry about maintaining it in two locations that might be conflicting.

You can't update the database with your users migration if the database migration records do not match up. You'll need to add the users from the existing location, assuming you're using code first due to the AspNetUser table.

TL;DR Add your data access layer (models, dbContext, migrations etc.) to a C# Shared Project and reference this in your MVC and Web API projects to keep consistency and reduce future work on maintenance.

You have not shown us the principal part of your code, which is the controller

Controller is the reason why your web API even works. So, if you have misconfigured something, it should be present in the controller first or then somewhere else.

Show us the code for the controller.

Edit

I am not sure if DbSet is appropriate for the usage, but using the context object works for me.

You should use

_context.MandateOrWhateverElseItIs.ToListAsync();

instead of using

_entities.ToListAsync();

Using the DbSet can be an issue, I recommend using the context. My application works fruitfully with context.

Edit

This is your code in BaseRepository

The controller is dependent on the implementation (class)

There are two things that need to be fixed:

If you rewrite your GetWebstorebyId method like this:

I would make two changes just for development and running on the local machine:

1. move the cors call before adding the controllers

2. use any origin like this