Project Organization

A walkthrough of the organization schema for Wrapt projects

Choosing an Architecture

Starting Out Clean

Deciding on a particular architecture to organize Wrapt projects was a big deal for me. Project architecture is a foundational aspect that drives a lot of different operations and sets up a projects for maintainable success or a total mess. While I don't think there is a single 'correct' architecture to chose, there are certainly patterns that are better than others.

The first that came to mind was a Clean/Onion Architecture format. It is a well known pattern in the enterprise architecture world and there are some great resources on it by Steve Smith, Uncle Bob, and Jason Taylor.

After a lot of research and a couple of trial projects, I actually decided that this was the architecture I wanted to use for Wrapt and went forward with it through 0.8.2. And then I came across a different pattern...

Onions Actually Stink — Moving to a Vertical Slice Architecture

Enter Vertical Slice Architecture (VSA). I came across one of Jimmy Bogard's talks on VSA and it really spoke to me. I also found out that it has worked really well for others as well, many of which who came from Clean projects.

For those not familiar, the short version is that Clean Architecture aims to separate the business rules from the I/O with designated layers while Vertical Slice Architecture aims to separate the code by features, aiming to minimize code sharing between features.

I'm planning on doing a detailed blog post on why I made this decision and how to work with VSA, but here are some of the benefits of VSA:

  • VSA is feature based. This is how requests come to my teams in real life and it lines up directly with my apps.
  • Because of the feature base, everything is in one spot. Everyone from a senior architect to a new intern knows exactly where to go to find something. This contrasts with Clean/Onion which forces layers on you prematurely in many instances.
  • This structure means that new features are rarely updating existing code and worrying about possible side effects. This allows you to breath easier and work faster.
  • Reusable code is written as the need for them is discovered, and not sooner. Starting with vertical slices essentially means you get adherence to You Ain't Gonna Need It (YAGNI) and Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). Even if you do miss something that would be better abstracted, duplication is far cheaper than the wrong abstraction.

For those that want to read up more on VSA, here's some links.

What Boilerplate Do You Get?

Entities & DTOs

Entities are set up by default to represent distinct tables in your database (though you can modify the scaffolding to change this when needed). These entities should not be exposed outside of the API and accordingly each have their own read, create, and update data transfer objects (DTOs). There is also a common Manipulation DTO that the update and create DTOs inherit from to share common requirements.

Additionally, These entities will always inherit from a BaseEntity with a Guid Id property that will be set as the primary key as well as CreatedOn, CreatedBy, LastModifiedOn, and LastModifiedBy for auditing and consistency across your domain.


Features are one of the pivotal patterns of a Vertical Slice Architecture. Each feature lives in the Feature folder of the within the Domain directory and will correspond to various actions that can be performed on each of your entities. Out of the box, Wrapt will give you basic CRUD features for each of your entities to get a list, get a record, create a record, update a record, partially update a record, and delete a record.

As your project grows, you can continue to add more features (or update these existing ones) to meet your business needs.

In practice, each controller is essentially acting as a router to a feature and that's all. All the business logic behind the endpoint lives in the feature (or, even better, in the domain entity that is used by the feature). The features themselves are MediatR commands or queries that are fed into a handler that return a response.


Yeah, I know this is a very controversial topic (I know and agree that EF is already a repository + UoW pattern). I pushed against them in the project for a while, but after dog fooding projects, I added them in for a couple reasons below (and no i'm not making the argument that it's nice because i can switch my RDS provider at a whim).

  • One of the biggest reasons is testing. I've found that, in practice, features can frequently have business logic paths that you want to write tests for, but you don't want to write expensive integration tests to accomplish that. By adding a repository, using can easily mock the repository in a unit test and test your logic path there without a big integration test cost.
  • Another is validation. If i want to check for uniqueness of a record in the database, before I create or update it I either need to 1. know to add it in every feature where the entity is added/updated or 2. pass a service into the factory methods and use them there. In order to do this, you need a service to pass through as you don't want to pass dbcontext directly to your domain entity. By using a repository here, we our domain entity just know that it has this service than can perform a particular check for it and all is good.
    • Another option could be to create a factory method layer over the domain entity itself that manages these service level things, but the current wrapt set up isn't built this way.

Note that the repositories are very simple abstractions on top of EF. This is by design and it is highly recommended to not create complex abstractions on top of an already well though out repository + uow pattern that EF provides.

  • Of note, none of the repository methods have an option to save inside of them. Saving should generally be done using the IUnitOfWork interface, but some situations might call for an immeidate save. If that's the case, you could consider adding an ad hoc method to the entity repository like UpdateImmediately if necessary.
  • For includes, either write a custom repository method on the entity repository for that use case, or pull in the other entity repository and get the info separately.

Filtering and Sorting

Configuring Filtering and Sorting

Wrapt APIs use the magnificent Sieve library for filtering and sorting. All GET list features will have this capability enabled automatically and can be used for any attributes that you have this configured for like so:

[Sieve(CanFilter = true, CanSort = false)]
public string FirstName { get; set; }

These properties can be set when creating an entity or adding a new property, otherwise you'll need to manage filtering and sorting on existing entity properties manually. There are details in the docs, but all you need to to is manage the Sieve attribute on any entity properties.

Note that Wrapt APIs do not use Sieve's pagination capabilities. For more information on how Wrapt handles pagination, see the pagination section.

Using Filtering and Sorting

To add a filter to your API calls, just add a Filters query string and the designated filter values you'd like to use. Below is a few examples, but you can find a full list of operators on the Sieve github page.


Sorting can also be added using the SortOrder query string and passing a comma separated list in the order you'd like to sort by. You can use a preceding - to sort as descending.


Updating Filtering and Sorting

If you'd like to change the pagination and/or sorting, you can update the ENTITYParametersDto.


Wrapt APIs use a custom pagination capability to make working with large dataset as easy as possible out of the box.

Pagination Requests

When making a request to your GET list endpoint, you can pass a PageNumber and PageSize query string, or exclude them to use the default values.

To change the default pagination values, go to the ENTITYParametersDto class that you'd like to modify and create an override parameter for the property you'd like to change. Be sure to set the permission level to internal to match the inherited permissions.

public class CityParametersDto : BasePaginationParameters
    internal override int DefaultPageSize { get; set; } = 50;
    public string Filters { get; set; }
    public string SortOrder { get; set; }

Please note that if you make change to the BasePaginationParameters class, it will affect all classes that inherit from it (which is every one by default). This is one of the few classes in Wrapt projects that is shared between multiple features as it is a common base to work from that is easily overridden.

Pagination Responses

Getting paginated results is nice, but you'll very likely want to know information about the collection's pagination info as well, especially when you're programming a UI. Wrapt APIs will automatically return a complete list of pagination metadata in the response header as X-Pagination. The following fields will be returned:

TotalCountThe total record count for the entire collection.
PageSizeThe page size that was requested.
CurrentPageSizeThe current page size.
CurrentStartIndexThe index of the first record on this page.
CurrentEndIndexThe index of the last record on this page.
PageNumberThe current page number in the collection.
TotalPagesThe total page count for the entire collection.
HasPreviousA boolean that denotes whether or not there is a previous page.
HasNextA boolean that denotes whether or not there is a next page.

Encapsulated Domain

Generally, we want to push our behaviors down into our domain entity. This means that our CQRS handlers get thinner and thinner and is really just performing data access logic (no need for an extra repository layer) so we can get delegate all the meat of the work in the domain logic. This means we have a fully encapsulated, 'always valid' domain.

Now, before we do all that work in the handler/domain logic, we need to check if we actually can do that thing that we want to do. Enter validation. So we want to center our validation around our requests and our handlers.


Validation can generally be broken up into two main categories 1) request validation and 2) command validation.

Request Validation

Request validation is just us making sure that the data in the request itself is valid to be submitted. Do we have all of the required fields, is a particular field a certain minimum length, etc.

Wrapt projects bring in Fluent Validation for you to use if you would like. Data annotations or built in domain validation are two other options as well. Feel free to use whatever works best for you! The main goal here is that you are able to validate the data that is coming in to your API.

If you're using fluent validation, validation rules can be assigned to the ENTITYForManipulationDtoValidator class if you'd like the rule to be run on both creation (POST calls) and update (PUT). If you'd like a rule to just be ran on one or the other, you can add the rule to the respective validator class. You might also consider a validator for your domain entity directly.

The OOTB rules for Fluent Validation are pretty robust, but if you need to make a custom validation rule, something like the below from this blog is a good example.

public static class CustomValidators
    public static IRuleBuilderOptions<T, string> NotStartWithWhiteSpace<T>(this IRuleBuilder<T, string> ruleBuilder)
        return ruleBuilder
          .Must(m => m != null && !m.StartsWith(" "))
          .WithMessage("'{PropertyName}' should not start with whitespace");
public class PersonValidator : AbstractValidator<Person>
    public PersonValidator()
        RuleFor(e => e.FirstName)
        RuleFor(e => e.LastName)

Note that these rules are only looking at the request object itself. They can't go out to something external and check for some validation there.

Command/Domain Validation

Command validation is where we have more complex business validations come into play that can work with the database or other external systems. These domain level validations make sure that:

  • An email address isn't taken when registering a new account
  • We can't add items to an order if it has already been processed
  • A name is unique and can't be added again
  • We can't approve cancelled invoices

This validation can be added in your command handler or, even better, encapsulated in your domain entity. This could go so far as needing to be a service that is passed in to a creation factory as an interface with the capability to perform whatever validation needs to happen.

Value Objects

A ValueObject class is scaffolded to SharedKernel to be used in your domain if you would like to use them. Here are a couple examples from other projects:

You can see more on value objects in the value objects section of the docs.


In Process Events

If you have an event you want to publish and consume withing the same boundary, you can use an in-process message to do so. This is simple in a wrapt project as you can just add an event to the DomainEvents property on an entity and all the stored events will be published on save.

By default, domain messages will be scaffolded for entity creation and update events and added as part of the factory methods.

To publish messages, just create a message in Domain.[EntityName].DomainEvents and queue it up using the QueueDomainEvent method on your entity.

Out of Process Events

Wrapt projects support scaffolding for event driven features like producers and consumers in an event bus, messages, and more.

Messages are stored in a distinct project at the solution root as they are generally used to communicate across bounded contexts and shouldn't belong to any particular bounded context.

Producers and consumers can both be added as distinct features using the add producer and add consumer commands.

A common requirement is to add a producer to an existing feature. If that's the case, you can add an IPublishEndpoint to your command and publish your message like you usually would. Additionally, you can use the register producer command to set up your registration. Here is what an updated feature might look like:

public class Handler : IRequestHandler<AddRecipeCommand, ReportRequestDto>
    private readonly ReportingDbContext _db;
    private readonly IMapper _mapper;
    private readonly IPublishEndpoint _publishEndpoint;

    public Handler(ReportingDbContext db, IMapper mapper, IPublishEndpoint publishEndpoint)
        _mapper = mapper;
        _db = db;
        _publishEndpoint = publishEndpoint;

    public async Task<ReportRequestDto> Handle(AddRecipeCommand request, CancellationToken cancellationToken)
        var recipe = Recipe.Create(request.RecipeToAdd);

        await _db.SaveChangesAsync(cancellationToken);

        var message = new
            RecipeId = request.Id,
        await _publishEndpoint.Publish<IRecipeAdded>(message);

        return await _db.Recipes
            .FirstOrDefaultAsync(r => r.Id == recipe.Id, cancellationToken);

Automated Tests

Wrapt will automatically scaffold out unit, integration and functional tests for each of your bounded contexts using NUnit.

  • Unit tests are meant to confirm that individual operations are working as expected (e.g. PagedList calculations). Additionally, you can test business flows to make sure logic paths are properly tested (e.g. a business process in a feature handler doesn't usually need an expensive integration test). Use these as much as possible for efficiency, but don't over mock things either.

  • Integration tests are meant to check that different areas are working together as expected (e.g. our features folder). These tests will spin up a real database in docker and run each of your feature tests in an actual representation of your database. If you're using eventing, an in-memory test harness for MassTransit will be set up for you to run eventing tests as well.

    These are generally the highest value tests in wrapt projects given the structure of the project, but they are more expensive, so be mindful of the cost. If you have a happy path or some specific operation you want to test, then you can and should, but ideally you can keep the main tests minimal here and then test all your business flows in unit tests.

  • Functional tests are meant to check an entire slice of functionality with all the code running together. These are generally more involved to write and maintain, but with this project setup, our controllers are essentially just routers to our feature queries and commands, so we have already done the meat of our testing in our integration tests. This means that our functional tests can generally just confirm that we are getting the expected responses from our routes and we can call it a day.

Virtualization For FK Unit Tests

Entity props are virtual by default with a protected constructor for mocking in unit tests. This is mostly for foreign entities (since we don't have EF to populate our foreign entities in unit tests), but in order to have our mocks accurately reflect all our props, we need to make them virtual. For example:

private static Author GetMockAuthor()
  	// my fake data base generated with AutoBogus under the hood
    var fakeRecipe = FakeRecipe.Generate();
    var forCreation = new FakeAuthorForCreationDto().Generate();
    forCreation.RecipeId = fakeRecipe.Id;

  	// FakeItEasy making entity assignment easy in lieu of EF
    var fakeAuthor = A.Fake<Author>(x => x.Wrapping(Author.Create(forCreation)));
    A.CallTo(() => fakeAuthor.Recipe)
    return fakeAuthor;

💡 This is default, but depending on your domain ops, you might have a domain method that does the action for you, in which case, you won't want these to be virtual. For example, Recipe might have SetAuthor or AddIngredient methods and you wouldn't want those FKs to be virtual.

Shared Kernel

Starting with v0.13, Wrapt projects will support a shared kernel. This means that you can have a class library that can store domain level abstractions like DTOs, exceptions, and roles (if using auth).

⚠️ Be careful what you put in here as it will be coupled to all of your boundaries!