Reporting vs. Coding - thoughts?

Question

Recently I had a project in which I had to get some data from particular software system to a portlet. The software used a database, and I spent a fair bit of time modeling the data I wanted and then creating a web service so that my portlet could grab the information.

Then it suddenly struck me that I was wasting my time. I grabbed BIRT, tossed it into a portlet, and then just wrote some reports that directly grabbed the necessary data from the database. I was done in an afternoon.

I understand that reporting is a one way street, but this got me thinking. Reporting tools can be very effective for creating reports (duh) from your actual data, but when you're doing this you're bypassing your model which except in simple cases is not a direct representation of your data as it exists in your database.

If you're writing a data-intensive application and require the ability to perform non-trivial reporting, do you bypass your application and use something like BIRT or Crystal Reports? How do you manage these tools as part of your overall process? Do you consider the reports you write as being part of your application and treat them as such? A report is a view and a model and a controller (if you will) all in one big mess, how do you deal with and interpret and plan for that?

Revised question: it's possible and even common that a report will perform some business calculations that in a perfect world you would like to have contained in your application. This can lead to a mismatch of information given back to the user. On the other hand, reporting tools make it so easy to gather and display information that it's hard to take a purist's approach and do everything from within the application. Are there any good techniques for ensuring that the data in your reports matches the data that you might be showing in the regular GUI?

Answer 1

I see reporting as simply another view on the data, not a view/model/controller in one (well, maybe a view and controller in one).

We have our reports (built in sql 2008 reporting services) consume a service in our application layer to get data (keeping with our standard, that data access is in a repository). These functions could do a simple query or handle very complex processing that would be a nightmare in your reporting evironment or a stored procedure. In practice, we find this takes no longer than coding up some one-off stored procedure that will, as your system grows and grows, become a nightmare to maintain.

Treating reporting as simply a one-off or not integrating into your application design is a huge mistake.

Answer 2

Reporting is crucial. Reporting is mostly crucial to share values collected in one system to external users, e.g. users not directly using the system (eg management for sales figures). So reporting is a lot more than just displaying facts and figures and is something central to almost every system that drives a commercial.

At least the more advanced systems allow you to enhance them: with your own reusable "controls". Even a way back can be implemented - if you just use the correct plugins. Once I wrote a system to send emails out of a report, because the system did not allow for change. It worked - though it was not meant to be used that way ;)

Reports make a good part of the application, and you gain a lot freedom if you make reports changeable for your customers. Sometimes you come up with more possibilities than you thought of when you built the system in the first place.

So yes, for me reporting is part of the system.

Answer 3

Reports are part of your app but because they are generally something a user will have strong ideas about than, say, your data capture UI, I'd sacrifice purity for convenience/speed of delivery and get back to "real" coding... :-)

As soon as you've done a report, users want another one or change the colour or optional grouping or more filtering or... something that takes you away from whizzier stuff... so I don't bust a gut maintaining purity.

Answer 4

This is a fine line indeed. You don't want to spend too much time building reports (that users want you to change all the time anyway) but you don't want to duplicate logic by putting business logic into your reports! With our reporting products at Data Dynamimcs I think we have reached a happy medium between these two tradeoffs.

By using the ObjectDataProvider (see links below for more info) you can bind the report directly to business objects (plain old objects) so you don't have to bypass your business layer for getting data. At the same time we provide a way to reference and use functions from other libraries in your report. This way if you have some code configured already to do some business logic calculations you can reuse those functions directly within your report. You can see an example of this in the links below too.

• Binding to Objects for your Data (see "Object Provider" section): http://www.datadynamics.com/Help/ddReports/ddrconDataSetAndObjectDataSource.html
• Adding Custom Code to your reports Walkthrough: http://www.datadynamics.com/Help/ddReports/ddrwlkCustomCode.html
• Using Custom Assemblies (referencing shared libraries/dlls from your report): http://www.datadynamics.com/Help/ddReports/ddrconCustomCode.html, and http://www.datadynamics.com/Help/ddReports/ddrtskCreatingAnInstanceMethod.html

Scott Willeke

Data Dynamics / GrapeCity

Answer 5

The way I've always worked with reports is to consider part reports as part of the code-base, and stored in the source along with the application. In some contexts, reports are more important than the application, in that management makes business decisions off of report data, having the wrong information can cause them to cancel a product line, cancel a campaign, or fire a sales person. Obviously, this depends highly on your management and your application.

Regarding keeping your model consistent, this is a bit trickier question. One way to ensure consistent model between reports and your application is to use stored procedures (or views) to retrieve data, depending on your application's architecture.