Question

我正在测试一个以这种方式使用积极缓存的存储库类SettingRepository：

private Settings Settings 
{
    get 
    {
        using (Session.Advanced.DocumentStore.AggressivelyCacheFor(TimeSpan.FromDays(1)))
        {
            return Session.Load<Settings>("settings/Settings") ?? new Settings
            {
                 SomeStringProperty = "DefaultValue"
            };
        }
    }
}

public string GetSomeStringProperty()
{
    return Settings.SomeStringProperty;
}

我已将文档存储配置为不使用服务器通知，但请注意session.SaveChanges()：

store.Conventions.ShouldAggressiveCacheTrackChanges = false;
store.Conventions.ShouldSaveChangesForceAggressiveCacheCheck = true;

我正在以下列方式测试缓存机制（NUnit）：

// Arrange
var settings = new Settings
{
    SomeStringProperty = "SomeValue"
};
Session.Store(settings, "settings/Settings");
Session.SaveChanges();
RenewSession();

var initialRequests = Session.Advanced.NumberOfRequests;

// Act - Assert 1
var someStringProperty = _settingRepository.GetSomeStringProperty();
Assert.That(someStringProperty, Is.EqualTo("SomeValue"));
Assert.That(Session.Advanced.NumberOfRequests, Is.EqualTo(initialRequests + 1));

// Act - Assert 2
someStringProperty = _settingRepository.GetSomeStringProperty();
Assert.That(applicationName, Is.EqualTo("SomeValue"));
Assert.That(Session.Advanced.NumberOfRequests, Is.EqualTo(initialRequests + 1));

// Act - Assert 3
settings.SomeStringValue = "SomeValueModified";
Session.SaveChanges(); // DOES NOT INVALIDATE CACHE

settings = Session.Load<Settings>("settings/Settings");
settings.SomeStringValue = "SomeValueModified";
Session.SaveChanges(); // THIS DOES INVALIDATE CACHE

...

请参阅底部代码中的注释。在跟踪更改之前，我已明确地从商店重新加载Settings实体，而对象在初始Store中通过引用传递：

Session.Store(settings, "settings/Settings");

这是设计的吗？我希望从那时起启用更改跟踪。

在没有加载的情况下保存对象两次时，RavenDB不会使缓存无效

0 个答案: