I have the task of implementing an Api with FOSRestBundle, but a have told explicitly I can't use inheritance on my controllers, and also i can't use the service container(It's supposed to make the API lighter). Without the extend on the controllers I can't access the AbstractController methods and without the service container my controllers are practically isolated. Is this a viable choice or is an insane? Any advise?
Not crazy though I would have expected that the same people who told you how not to do things would have also offered some advice on how to do them.
One approach is to break up the ControllerTrait (aka AbstractController) into smaller traits.
For example:
trait RouterTrait
{
/** #var RouterInterface */
protected $router;
/** #required NOTE THIS */
public function setRouter(RouterInterface $router)
{
$this->router = $router;
}
protected function generateUrl(
string $route,
array $parameters = array(),
int $referenceType = UrlGeneratorInterface::ABSOLUTE_PATH): string
{
return $this->router->generate($route, $parameters, $referenceType);
}
protected function redirect($url, $status = 302) : RedirectResponse ...
protected function redirectToRoute($route, array $parameters = array(), $status = 302) : RedirectResponse ...
The #required before the setRouter method is a little used annotation which causes the router service to be automatically injected by the container.
At this point, any controller or any other service that uses the router trait will have access to the router helper functions.
For example:
class UserCreateAction implements ActionInterface
{
use GuidTrait;
use RouterTrait;
...
public function __invoke(Request $request)
{
...
return $this->redirectToRoute('reg_person_register');
Composition over inheritance can be a good thing.
One final off-topic piece of advice. There is little or no reason to use FOSRestBundle anymore unless it is to support legacy projects. The Symfony based API Platform is really the goto solution for new projects.
Related
Just a quick question. I'm building some API. I was thinking about creating simple parent class that would deal with form requests.
So for example if you would like to easily handle form request you just extend this class and you get access to request object, request data extracted from that object and bunch of methods that do some things for you out of the box. It doesn't matter what and why exactly.
The problem is:
I send request through postman.
I try to use request object in class that extends parent class but instead of request I get null.
How do I set up the whole thing?:
Now in Symfony every controller is by default registered as a service so I override this definition like this:
#generic api form controller
App\Controller\Api\ApiFormController:
calls:
- [setDependencies, ['#request_stack', '#App\Service\Serialization\Serializer']]
So as you can see I am using setter injection.
I extend above class in my other class. Let's call it PostController. So:
<?php
namespace App\Controller\Api;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\RequestStack;
class ApiFormController
{
/**
* #var Request
*/
public $request;
/**
* #param RequestStack $requestStack
*/
public function setDependencies(
RequestStack $requestStack
) {
$this->request = $requestStack;
}
}
And now PostController:
public function get(int $post = null)
{
dump($this->request); exit;
}
I was expecting to get access like this and I think I understand why I don't have access to this object. I'm looking for some ideas how I could achieve this goal in cleanest possible way. I'm not expecting ready answers but hints.
I was thinking about using events to set it up in the background?
I also think it has something to do with the way I'm hooking up my controller as a service.
The core of it all: Symfony does not pick up service definition for subclasses. So if you define dependencies for a class and extend it in another class, you have to define the dependencies for this second class too.
The easiest way is to use the parent keyword for this, so your example would work in the following way:
App\Controller\Api\ApiFormController:
calls:
- [setDependencies, ['#request_stack', '#App\Service\Serialization\Serializer']]
PostController:
parent: App\Controller\Api\ApiFormController
If you are using autowiring, you can use #required to make Symfony call the setter automatically. https://symfony.com/doc/current/service_container/autowiring.html#autowiring-other-methods-e-g-setters
/**
* #param RequestStack $requestStack
* #required
*/
public function setDependencies(
RequestStack $requestStack
) {
$this->request = $requestStack;
}
This should do the trick.
I see several problems here.
If you want to inject dependencies in such a way you should define controller as service. You can read more here.
Routing should be something like this:
# config/routes.yaml
get_something:
path: /
defaults: { _controller: App\Controller\Api\PostController:get }
Also, you should define PostController as service, not ApiFormController.
You injected RequestStack but type hint for the attribute is Request.
Instead of:
$this->request = $requestStack;
You need to use:
$this->request = $requestStack->getMasterRequest();
If you want to have another middleware/object in a middleware
you have to use a factory like
namespace App\Somnething;
use Interop\Container\ContainerInterface;
class MyMiddlewareFactory
{
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName)
{
return new $requestedName(
$container->get(\App\Path\To\My\Middleware::class)
);
}
}
So MyMiddleware would have been injected with \App\Path\To\My\Middleware and we would be able to access it.
Question:
would it be wrong to inject the middleware with the app itself or the container? Like:
namespace App\Somnething;
use Interop\Container\ContainerInterface;
use Zend\Expressive\Application;
class MyMiddlewareFactory
{
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName)
{
return new $requestedName(
$container->get(Application::class)
);
}
}
This way it would be possible to get anything ~on the fly.
Like
namespace App\Somnething;
use Zend\Expressive\Application;
class MyMiddleware
{
/** #var Application $app */
protected $app;
public function __construct(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
}
public function __invoke($some, $thing)
{
if ($some and $thing) {
$ever = $this->app
->getContainer()
->get(\Path\To\What\Ever::class);
$ever->doSome();
}
}
}
You don't inject middleware into other middleware. You inject dependencies like services or repositories. Each middleware takes care of a specifc task like authentication, authorization, localization negotiation, etc. They are executed one after the other. They mess around with the request and pass the request to the next middleware. Once the middleware stack has been exhausted, the response is returned all the way back through all the middleware in reverse order until it finally reaches the outer layer which displays the output. You can find a flow overview in the expressive docs.
I wouldn't advice to inject the container and certainly not the app itself. Although it might be easy during development, your application becomes untestable. If you inject only the services that are needed into a middleware, action or service you can easily mock those during tests. After a while you get used to writing factories where needed and it goes pretty fast.
The same goes for injecting the entity manager (if you use doctrine). It's easier to test an application if you only inject the needed repositories, which you can easily mock.
Having said this, if you are looking for an easy way to inject dependencies, zend-servicemanager can do that. Take a look at abstract factories. With an abstract factory you can create one factory for all your action classes:
<?php
namespace App\Action;
use Interop\Container\ContainerInterface;
use ReflectionClass;
use Zend\ServiceManager\Factory\AbstractFactoryInterface;
class AbstractActionFactory implements AbstractFactoryInterface
{
public function __invoke(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName, array $options = null)
{
// Construct a new ReflectionClass object for the requested action
$reflection = new ReflectionClass($requestedName);
// Get the constructor
$constructor = $reflection->getConstructor();
if (is_null($constructor)) {
// There is no constructor, just return a new class
return new $requestedName;
}
// Get the parameters
$parameters = $constructor->getParameters();
$dependencies = [];
foreach ($parameters as $parameter) {
// Get the parameter class
$class = $parameter->getClass();
// Get the class from the container
$dependencies[] = $container->get($class->getName());
}
// Return the requested class and inject its dependencies
return $reflection->newInstanceArgs($dependencies);
}
public function canCreate(ContainerInterface $container, $requestedName)
{
// Only accept Action classes
if (substr($requestedName, -6) == 'Action') {
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
I wrote a blog post about that.
At the end of the day it's your own decision, but best practice is not injecting the app, container or the entity manager. It will make your life easier if you need to debug your middleware and / or write tests for it.
Injecting the application or container in your middleware is possible but it is not good idea at all:
1) Inversion Of Control (IoC)
It violated the inversion of control principle, your class must not have any knowledge about the IoC container.
2) Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP)
Dependency inversion principle states that "high-level modules should not depend on low-level modules", so your higher level middleware class depends on the infrastructure/framework.
3) Law of Demeter (LoD)
According to the law of demeter, the unit should have limited knowledge about other units, it should know only about its closely related units.
The MyMiddleware::class has too much knowledge other units, first of all, it knows about the Application::class, then it knows that the Application knows about the Container, then it knows that the Container knows about the What\Ever::class and so on.
This kind of code violates some of the most important OOP principles, leads to horrible coupling with the framework, it has implicit dependencies and least but not last, it is hard to be read and understood.
I need to display two different index pages to two different user groups. For example, a regular user should see one page, and a privileged user - another one. I see two ways of approaching this issue:
One index action with conditionals:
public function index()
{
// view for privileged users
if(request()->user()->hasRole('privileged')){
return view('index_privileged');
}
// view for regular users
if(request()->user()->hasRole('regular')){
return view('index_regular');
}
return redirect('/');
}
Multiple actions:
public function index_privileged()
{
return view('index_privileged');
}
public function index_regular()
{
return view('index_regular');
}
Which approach is more "restful-friendly" and generally better?
I'm a big fan of light controllers. This might be a little overboard for a simple problem but if something like this pops up again, you'd already have everything all setup.
With that said, it might be best to create a PrivilegedUser class and a RegularUser class and give them both an index method which returns their respective views. Code them both to an interface UserInterface and make sure they both implement that.
Here is what those looked like in my test.
class RegularUser implements UserInterface
{
public function index()
{
return view('index_regular');
}
}
class PrivilegedUser implements UserInterface
{
public function index()
{
return view('index_privileged');
}
}
interface UserInterface
{
public function index();
}
Then you can add a listener which should run for the event Illuminate\Auth\Events\Login. Laravel will fire this event for you automatically when someone logs in. This goes into the file EventServiceProvider.php.
protected $listen = [
'Illuminate\Auth\Events\Login' => [
'App\Listeners\AuthLoginListener',
],
];
Now you can run php artisan event:generate to generate the new listener. Here is what my listener looks like, it should work for you.
namespace App\Listeners;
use Illuminate\Auth\Events\Login;
use Illuminate\Foundation\Application;
class AuthLoginListener
{
/**
* Create the event listener.
*
* #param Application $app
*/
public function __construct(Application $app)
{
$this->app = $app;
}
/**
* Handle the event.
*
* #param Login $event
* #return void
*/
public function handle(Login $event)
{
if ($event->user->hasRole('privileged')) {
$this->app->bind('App\Repositories\UserInterface', 'App\Repositories\PrivilegedUser');
} else if ($event->user->hasRole('regular')) {
$this->app->bind('App\Repositories\UserInterface', 'App\Repositories\RegularUser');
}
}
}
Essentially what this is doing is telling Laravel to load up a certain class based on the type of user that just logged in. The User instance is available through the Login object which was automatically passed in by Laravel.
Now that everything is setup, we barely have to do anything in our controller and if you need to do more things that are different depending on the user, just add them to the RegularUser or PrivilegedUser class. If you get more types of users, simply write a new class for them that implements the interface, add an additional else if to your AuthLoginListener and you should be good to go.
To use this, in your controller, you'd do something like the following...
// Have Laravel make our user class
$userRepository = App::make('App\Repositories\UserInterface');
return $userRepository->index()->with('someData', $data);
Or even better, inject it as a dependency.
use App\Repositories\UserInterface;
class YourController extends Controller
{
public function index(UserInterface $user)
{
return $user->index();
}
}
Edit:
I just realized I forgot the part where you wanted to return redirect('/'); if no condition was met. You could create a new class GuestUser (I know this sounds like an oxymoron) which implements UserInterface but instead of using the AuthLoginListener, I'd bind it in a service provider when Laravel boots. This way Laravel will always have something to return when it needs an implementation of UserInterface in the event it needs this class if no one is logged in.
Well, its more like a refactoring "issue" than a rest-friendly issue. Check this guideline and you can see that most of the things that makes an api friendly is concerned to the url.
But, lets answer what you are asking. The thing you wanna do is a refactoring method but it is not only the move method but something like the extract variable.
The second option would make the code more readable, either ways are right but the second is more developer friendly. It enhances the code readability from any developer. I would recommend using the second option.
Refactoring is never enough, but read something like this, it will help you a lot writing more readable codes.
I'm having a problem with passing the entity manager between two layers of controllers.
The system I'm building has the following structure:
2 Bundles:
Core Bundle (let's call it Backend Controller)
This is the bundle that contains all the Models (entities) and business rules/logic.
API Bundle (call it Frontend controller)
Is responsible for checking the permissions of passed in api keys and communicating with the Core bundle to get the info.
Here's an example with the User controllers and entities:
UserController.php in APIBundle:
<?php
namespace Acme\Bundle\APIBundle\Controller;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
use Acme\Bundle\CoreBundle\Controller\UserController as User;
use Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Test\WebTestCase;
class UserController extends BaseController implements AuthenticatedController
{
public function readAction(Request $request) {
$user = new User($this->getDoctrine()->getManager());
$user->load(2);
return $this->response($user);
}
}
UserController.php in CoreBundle:
<?php
namespace Acme\Bundle\CoreBundle\Controller;
use Sensio\Bundle\FrameworkExtraBundle\Configuration\Route;
use Sensio\Bundle\FrameworkExtraBundle\Configuration\Template;
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response;
use Acme\Bundle\CoreBundle\Entity\User;
class UserController extends BaseController
{
function __construct($em) {
parent::__construct($em);
$this->entity = new User();
}
/**
* Get userId
*
* #return integer
*/
public function getUserId()
{
return $this->entity->userId;
}
/**
* Set firstName
*
* #param string $firstName
* #return User
*/
public function setFirstName($firstName)
{
$this->entity->firstName = $firstName;
return $this;
}
// ...
public function load($id) {
if (!$this->entity instanceof \Acme\Bundle\CoreBundle\Entity\BaseEntity) {
throw new \Exception('invalid entity argument');
}
$this->entity = $this->em->getRepository('AcmeCoreBundle:User')->find($id);
}
}
Please, tell me if I'm doing this right. It seems strange to pass the entity manager between the controllers every time.
Maybe there's a better way of doing that?
Does the idea between the separation of the bundles make sense?
Thank you, every idea is greatly appreciated.
If CoreBundle UserController is never accessed through HTTP nor do its methods return instances of Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response then it's not really a controller.
You should better define it as a service, as in CoreBundle\Service\User, and inject the EntityManager through the DI container.
sevices.yml
corebundle.userservice:
class: Acme\CoreBundle\Service\User
arguments: [#doctrine.orm.entity_manager]
It will then be available from Acme\Bundle\APIBundle\Controller\UserController with the following:
$user = $this->get('corebundle.userservice');
Of course, you can also define Acme\Bundle\APIBundle\Controller\UserController as a service on its own, then inject 'corebundle.userservice', for convenience.
I suggest you read the Symfony docs on Dependency Injection.
Search to get entity manager in Entity class is a wrong way !
In CoreBundle, you use the UserController.php same as an Entity class.
Read docs to understand how to properly use repository in symfony.
In UserController of APIBundle you must call a custom repository function. This repository is declare in your entity.
I'm currently using SOA, I've a bunch of Service, (ArticleService, CommentService, UserService, etc..)
I also have a ConfigurationService which is filled from an XML configuration file.
I'm using Zend Framework.
THis configuration service is needed in some of my service, and I'm using dependency injection, is it a good practice, to add ConfigurationService in constructor of most my Service to be able to fetch global configuration?
Thank you for your feedbacks.
I would say, no, don't pass the config container - neither as a service nor as an array nor a Zend_Config instance - in the constructor of your other services. I would keep the injection (whether by constructor or by setter) for those services focused on the actual objects/collaborators/data they actually need.
So, for example, an ArticleService might depend upon an ArticleRepository interface/object or on an ArticleMapper or on a db adapter. Let the constructor/setter signatures for the ArticleService reflect what it truly needs.
Instead, what I would do is during Bootstrap, create some kind of factory object - perhaps as an application resource - that accepts in its constructor your config data/object/service (or even better, the bootstrap instance itself, from which you could get, not just your config data, but also any application resources, like a db adapter, that were created during the bootstrap process). Then write methods on your factory object that create/deliver the other services you need. Internally, the factory maintains a registry of already created services so that it can lazy-create instances where required.
A snippet of what I have in mind might be as follows:
Bootstrap snippet:
class Bootstrap extends Zend_Application_Bootstrap_Bootstrap
{
protected function _initFactory()
{
$factory = new My_Factory($this);
return $factory;
}
}
Then the factory:
class My_Factory
{
protected $_registry;
protected $_bootstrap;
public function __constructor($bootstrap)
{
$this->_bootstrap = $bootstrap;
}
public function getDbAdapter()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['dbAdapter']){
$this->_bootstrap->bootstrap('db'); // probably using app resource
$this->_registry['dbAdapter'] = $This->_bootstrap->getResource('db');
}
return $this->_registry['dbAdapter'];
}
public function getArticleService()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['articleService']){
$dbAdapter = $this->getDbAdapter();
$this->_registry['articleService'] = new My_ArticleService($dbAdapter);
}
return $this->_registry['articleService'];
}
public function getTwitterService()
{
if (!isset($this->_registry['twitterService']){
$options = $this->_bootstrap->getOptions();
$user = $options['twitter']['user'];
$pass = $options['twitter']['pass'];
$this->_registry['twitterService'] = new My_TwitterService($user, $pass);
}
return $this->_registry['twitterService'];
}
}
Then in a controller, you could grab an ArticleService instance:
class SomeController extends Zend_Controller_Action
{
protected $_factory;
public function init()
{
$this->_factory = $this->getInvokeArg('bootstrap')->getResource('factory');
}
public function someAction()
{
$articleService = $this->_factory->getArticleService();
$this->view->articles = $articleService->getRecentArticles(5); // for example
}
}
The upshot here is that each service explicitly identifies the collaborators it needs and the factory is a single place that takes care of creating/injecting all those collaborators.
Finally, I confess that I am just spitballing here. To me, this is essentially a rudimentary dependency injection container; in that sense, using a fully-featured DIC - perhaps the Symfony DIC or the new Zend\Di package in ZF2 - might be better. But after many months of struggling with all the best-practice recommendations to inject your dependencies, this is what I have come up with. If it's goofy or just plain wrong, please (please!) straighten me out. ;-)