Lets say I have bunch of car objects in my project, for example:
object Porsche extends Car {
override def start() {...}
override def canStart(fuelInLitr: Int) = fuelInLitr > 5
override val fuelInLitr = 45
override val carId = 1234567
}
im extending Car which is just a trait to set a car structure:
trait Car {
def start(): Unit
val canStart(fuel: Double): Boolean
val fuelInLitr: Int
val carId: Int
}
Now, in the start() method I want to use some api service that will give me a car key based on its id so I cant start the car.
So I have this CarApiService:
class CarApiService (wsClient: WSClient, configuration: Configuration) {
implicit val formats: Formats = DefaultFormats
def getCarkey(carId: String): Future[Option[CarKey]] = {
val carInfoServiceApi = s"${configuration.get[String]("carsdb.carsInfo")}?carId=$carId"
wsClient.url(carInfoServiceApi).withHttpHeaders(("Content-Type", "application/json")).get.map { response =>
response.status match {
case Status.OK => Some(parse(response.body).extract[CarKey])
case Status.NO_CONTENT => None
case _ => throw new Exception(s"carsdb failed to perform operation with status: ${response.status}, and body: ${response.body}")
}
}
}
}
I want to have the ability to use getCarkey() in my car objects, so I created a CarsApiServicesModule which will give my access to the carApiService and I can use its methods:
trait CarsApiServicesModule {
/// this supply the carApiService its confuguration dependancy
lazy val configuration: Config = ConfigFactory.load()
lazy val conf: Configuration = wire[Configuration]
/// this supply the carApiService its WSClient dependancy
lazy val wsc: WSClient = wire[WSClient]
lazy val carApiService: CarApiService = wire[CarApiService]
}
and now I want to add mix this trait in my car object this way:
object Porsche extends Car with CarsApiServicesModule {
// here I want to use myApiService
// for example: carApiService.getCarkey(carId)...
}
but when compiling this I get this error:
does anyone know what is the issue?
also, is that design make sense?
You need to keep in mind that wire is just a helper macro which tries to generate new instance creation code: it's quite dumb, in fact. Here, it would try to create a new instance of WSClient.
However, not all objects can be instantiated using a simple new call - sometimes you need to invoke "factory" method.
In this case, if you take a look at the readme on GitHub, you'll see that to instantiate the WSClient, you need to create it through the StandaloneAhcWSClient() object.
So in this case, wire won't help you - you'll need to simply write the initialisation code by hand. Luckily it's not too large.
Related
I have a trait Observer which I implemented according to Erich Gamma's Design Pattern.
trait Observer {
def update: Unit
}
class Observable {
var subscribers: Vector[Observer] = Vector()
def add(s: Observer): Unit = subscribers = subscribers :+ s
def remove(s: Observer): Unit = subscribers = subscribers.filterNot(o => o == s)
def notifyObserver: Unit = subscribers.foreach(o => o.update)
}
This Observer keeps an eye on one of my controllers and signals every change made inside of it.
When I try to create an instance of that trait to particular test it inside for example my testing class for the Controller (which extends Observable) ...
class ControllerSpec extends AnyWordSpec with Matchers {
"A controller" when {
"observed by an Observer" should {
val desk = new Desk(3)
val controller = new Controller(desk)
// new instance of trait observer
val observer = new Observer {
var updated: Boolean = false
def isUpdated: Boolean = updated
override def update: Unit = {
updated = true; updated
}
}
controller.add(observer)
"notify its Observer after creation" in {
controller.createEmptyDesk(3)
observer.updated should be(true) // fails
controller.desk.size should be(3)
}
...
...
...
...I get the following problem by the compiler.
value updated is not a member of ***.util.Observer - did you mean observer.update?
observer.updated should be(true)
For some reason the compiler does not accept that I created a new instance of that trait and extended it with new values or rather methods. Instead it redirects me to the trait directly in which such values or methods are not defined nor mentioned.
Thought this would be possible in order to test my classes properly. Anyone has an idea of what is going on or what I have been maybe missing out?
I am kind of new to Scala and currently using the new Scala-3. Before that, I came in touch with the Version 2 and never had a problem like this.
Thank you for looking into it.
I have a different car object's, one for example:
object Porsche extends Car with CarsUtilities {
override def start() {...}
override def canStart(fuelInLitr: Int) = fuelInLitr > 5
override val fuelInLitr = 45
override val carId = 1234567
}
this is how Car and CarsUtilities looks like:
trait Car {
def start(): Unit
val canStart(fuel: Double): Boolean
val fuelInLitr: Int
val carId: Int
}
trait CarsUtilities {
// method to prepare start() result
def prepareResult() = {...}
}
I have two api services:
class CarApiService (wsClient: WSClient, configuration: Configuration) {
def getCarkey(carId: String): Future[Option[CarKey]] = {
// here im performing api call using wsclient
}
}
and
class CarSupplierApiService #Inject()(configuration: Configuration) {
def getSupplierInfo(carId: String): Future[Option[SupplierInfo]] = // here im performing elastic search api call
}
Now, In some of the car object's, lets say 50% of them im gonna use those api services, sometime both and other times just one of them. What would be a best practice of providing those car objects those services instances?
I dont really want to use new to create an instance of them for each object that need to use them...so I thought maybe add them lazily to the CarsUtilities so all the car objects will have access to those api services when they need them...would that be a good solution?
also, if I do that how do I give then the Configuration and WSClient injections?
trait CarsUtilities {
lazy val carApiService = new CarApiService(???)
lazy val carSupplierApiService = new CarSupplierApiService(???)
// method to prepare start() result
def prepareResult() = {...}
}
thanks!!
using playframework 2.6, scala 2.11.8 :)
Generally, dependency injection and objects doesn't work together. Please see here for work-arounds, but in the long term you wan to get rid of objects that depend on injected classes.
What you probably need is some sort of business service that is a class an may be injected in controllers, like so:
class CarsUtilities #Inject() (carApiService: CarApiService, carSupplierApiService: CarSupplierApiService) {
// this class implements all the business logic and can use the services
def prepareResult() = {}
}
In the controllers, you may inject this CarsUtilities as well, because dependency injection "propagates".
Scala functions has following methods for chaining:
fn1.andThen(fn2)
fn1.compose(fn2)
But how can be written this case:
I have function cleanUp() which has to be called always as last step.
And I have a bunch of other functions, like that:
class Helper {
private[this] val umsHelper = new UmsHelper()
private[this] val user = umsHelper.createUser()
def cleanUp = ... // delete user/ and other entities
def prepareModel(model: TestModel) = {
// create model on behalf of the user
}
def commitModel() = {
// commit model on behalf of the user
}
}
And some external code can use code something like this:
val help = new Helper()
help.prepareModel()
help.commitModel()
// last step should be called implicitly cleanUp
How this can be written in a functional way, that chaining will always
call cleanUp function implicitly as last step?
Note: I see it as analogue of destructor in C++. Some chaining (doesn't matter how this chain is done) fn1 andLater fn2 andLater fn3 have to call as last step cleanUp (fn1 andLater fn2 andLater fn3 andLater cleanUp). Wrong with directly writing cleanUp method is there is a big chance someone will miss this step and user will be leaked (will be stayed in database)
This is a more advanced alternative:
When you hear "context" and "steps", there's a functional pattern that directly comes to mind: Monads. Rolling up your own monad instance can simplify the user-side of putting valid steps together, while providing warranties that the context will be cleaned up after them.
Here, we are going to develop a "CleanableContext" construction that follows that pattern.
We base our construct on the most simple monad, one whose only function is to hold a value. We're going to call that Context
trait Context[A] { self =>
def flatMap[B](f:A => Context[B]): Context[B] = f(value)
def map[B](f:A => B): Context[B] = flatMap(f andThen ((b:B) => Context(b)))
def value: A
}
object Context {
def apply[T](x:T): Context[T] = new Context[T] { val value = x }
}
Then we have a CleanableContext, which is capable of "cleaning up after itself" provided some 'cleanup' function:
trait CleanableContext[A] extends Context[A] {
override def flatMap[B](f:A => Context[B]): Context[B] = {
val res = super.flatMap(f)
cleanup
res
}
def cleanup: Unit
}
And now, we have an object that's able to produce a cleanable UserContext that will take care of managing the creation and destruction of users.
object UserContext {
def apply(x:UserManager): CleanableContext[User] = new CleanableContext[User] {
val value = x.createUser
def cleanup = x.deleteUser(value)
}
}
Let's say that we have also our model and business functions already defined:
trait Model
trait TestModel extends Model
trait ValidatedModel extends Model
trait OpResult
object Ops {
def prepareModel(user: User, model: TestModel): Model = new Model {}
def validateModel(model: Model): ValidatedModel = new ValidatedModel {}
def commitModel(user: User, vmodel: ValidatedModel): OpResult = new OpResult {}
}
Usage
With that reusable machinery in place, our users can express our process in a succinct way:
import Ops._
val ctxResult = for {
user <- UserContext(new UserManager{})
validatedModel <- Context(Ops.prepareModel(user, testModel)).map(Ops.validateModel)
commitResult <- Context(commitModel(user, validatedModel))
} yield commitResult
The result of the process is still encapsulated, and can be taken "out" from the Context with the value method:
val result = ctxResult.value
Notice that we need to encapsulate the business operations into a Context to be used in this monadic composition. Note as well that we don't need to manually create nor cleanup the user used for the operations. That's taken care of for us.
Furthermore, if we needed more than one kind of managed resource, this method could be used to take care of managing additional resources by composing different contexts together.
With this, I just want to provide another angle to the problem. The plumbing is more complex, but it creates a solid ground for users to create safe processes through composition.
I think that the core of the question is "how to keep a resource within a managed context". i.e. provide users with a way to use the resource and prevent it to 'leak' outside its context.
One possible approach is to provide a functional access to the managed resource, where the API requires functions to operate over the resource in question. Let me illustrate this with an example:
First, we define the domain of our model: (I've added some subtypes of Model to make the example more clear)
trait User
trait Model
trait TestModel extends Model
trait ValidatedModel extends Model
trait OpResult
// Some external resource provider
trait Ums {
def createUser: User
def deleteUser(user: User)
}
Then we create a class to hold our specific context.
class Context {
private val ums = new Ums{
def createUser = new User{}
def deleteUser(user: User) = ???
}
def withUserDo[T](ops: User => T):T = {
val user = ums.createUser
val result = ops(user)
ums.deleteUser(user)
result
}
}
The companion object provides (some) operations on the managed resource. Users can provide their own functions as well.
object Context {
def prepareModel(model: TestModel): User => Model = ???
val validateModel: Model => ValidatedModel = ???
val commitModel: ValidatedModel => OpResult = ???
}
We can instantiate our context and declare operations on it, using a classic declaration, like:
val ctx = new Context
val testModel = new TestModel{}
val result = ctx.withUserDo{ user =>
val preparedModel = prepareModel(testModel)(user)
val validatedModel = validateModel(preparedModel)
commitModel(validatedModel)
}
Or, given the desire in the question to use functional composition, we could rewrite this as:
val result = ctx.withUserDo{
prepareModel(testModel) andThen validateModel andThen commitModel
}
Use autoClean this will automatically call cleanUp at the end.
create a HelperStuff trait which contains all the necessary functions.
Inside the Helper object create a private implementation of the HelperStuff and then have a method method called autoClean which does the work keeping the Helper instance private and safe way from the rouge users.
Helper.autoClean { helperStuff =>
//write all your code here. clean up will happen automatically
helper.foo()
helper.commitModel()
}
Here is the autoClean function for you
trait HelperStuff {
def foo(): Unit
def commitModel: Unit
def cleanUp(): Unit
}
object Helper {
private class Helper extends HelperStuff {
def foo(): Unit = println("foo")
def cleanUp(): Unit = println("cleaning done")
}
private val helper = new Helper()
def autoClean[T](code: HelperStuff => T): T = {
val result = code(helper)
helper.cleanUp()
result
}
}
In Scala, is there there anything wrong with using the below method of dependency injection.
// Define an interface
trait FileStorage {
def readFile(filename:String):OutputStream
}
// And an implementation
class S3FileStorage extends FileStorage {
def readFile(filename:String):OutputStream = ???
}
// Define our service as a trait with abstract fields that need to be
// injected in order to construct. All implementation details go here.
trait FileHTTPServer {
val fileStorage:FileStorage
def fetchFile( session:Session, filename:String ) = ???
}
Now we wire things up
// Wire up a concrete file service that we actually use in code
// No implementation details should go here, we're simply wiring up a FileHttpServerl
// An entire project could be wired up this way in a central location if desired.
object S3FileHttpServer extends FileHTTPServer {
val fileStorage = new S3FileStorage
}
// We could also do this anonymously
val myHttpServer = new FileHttpServer {
val fileStorage = new S3FileStorage
}
// Or create a mocked version for testing
val mockedHttpServer = new FileHttpServer {
val fileStorage = mock[FileStorage]
}
Obviously the Cake pattern provides more flexibility (particularly around self-types), however for simpler use cases this has much less boilerplate, while still providing compile time checking and a clean unambiguous interface.
Yes, this is absolutely fine approach. And yes, sometimes you can use constructor injection, nothing wrong with that too. But with constructor injection you have to propagate your dependencies manually, while with cake pattern your dependencies are propagated automatically via self-type annotations. So for big projects constructor injection actually lead to more boilerplate than cake pattern, especially at the construction site (where you create all your objects and set up dependencies between them).
However, what you have presented is not full-fledged cake pattern. In real cake pattern there is an additional layer around business logic classes, so-called components, and you do not wire up logic classes directly but components instead.
trait FileStorageComponent {
def fileStorage: FileStorage
trait FileStorage {
def readFile(filename: String): OutputStream
}
}
trait S3FileStorageComponent extends FileStorageComponent {
val fileStorage = new S3FileStorage
class S3FileStorage extends FileStorage {
def readFile(filename: String): OutputStream = ???
}
}
trait FileHttpServerComponent {
self: FileStorageComponent =>
val fileHttpServer = new FileHttpServer
class FileHttpServer {
def fetchFile(session: Session, filename: String) = ???
}
}
// Wiring
object S3FileHttpServer extends FileHttpServerComponent with S3FileStorageComponent
// Anonymous
val server = new FileHttpServerComponent with S3FileStorageComponent
// Mocking
object TestFileHttpServer extends FileHttpServerComponent with FileStorageComponent {
val fileStorage = mock[FileStorage]
}
In this approach there are more boilerplate in traits definitions, but in return you have greater flexibility and very clear dependency management on the use place. For example, here is how program entry point in one of my projects looks like:
object Main
extends MainUI
with DefaultActorsManagerComponent
with DefaultPreferencesAccessComponent
with DefaultModelComponent
with DefaultMainWindowViewComponent
with DefaultMainWindowControllerComponent
with MainWindowReporterComponent
with DefaultClientActorComponent
with DefaultResponseParserActorComponent
with DefaultArchiverActorComponent
with DefaultMainWindowAccessActorComponent
with DefaultUrlParserComponent
with DefaultListenerActorComponent
with DefaultXmlPrettifierComponent
All main program components are in one place. Pretty neat IMO.
I'm new to the Play framework and scala and I'm trying to inject a dependency inside a companion object.
I have a simple case class, like:
case class Bar(foo: Int) {}
With a companion object like:
object Bar {
val myDependency =
if (isTest) {
// Mock
}
else
{
// Actual implementation
}
val form = Form(mapping(
"foo" -> number(0, 100).verifying(foo => myDependency.validate(foo)),
)(Bar.apply)(Bar.unapply))
}
This works fine, but it's not really a clean way to do it. I'd like to be able to inject the dependency at build time so that I can inject different mock objects when testing and different real implementations in development and production.
What's the best way to achieve this?
Any help really appreciated. Thanks!
Along the lines of the Cake, we can try to change your example to
trait Validator {
def validate(foo: Int): Boolean
}
trait TestValidation {
val validator = new Validator {
def validate(foo: Int): Boolean = ...
}
}
trait ImplValidation {
val validator = new Validator {
def validate(foo: Int): Boolean = ...
}
}
trait BarBehavior {
def validator: Validator
val form = Form(mapping(...))(Bar.apply)(Bar.unapply)
}
//use this in your tests
object TestBar extends BarBehavior with TestValidation
//use this in production
object ImplBar extends BarBehavior with ImplValidation
You should additionally try and test if this example fits well within the Play Framework, too