Symfony setter injection for polymorphic service - php

I'm using Symfony 5.4 and PHP 7.4 with the default service configuration. I have an abstract service like this:
abstract class Parent
{
protected FooInterface $fooDependency;
public abstract function setFooDependency(FooInterface $fooDependency): void;
}
In my child classes, I want to inject different implementations of FooInterface for each child. The problem is that PHP rightly complains about the child method's declaration not being compatible if the argument's type is anything other than FooInterface:
class Child extends Parent
{
public abstract function setFooDependency(FooService $fooDependency): void {}
}
I can solve this by not defining setFooDependency() in the abstract parent, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having the abstract class in the first place (I want to enforce a contract!)
Another workaround is to implement setFooDependency() in the parent class (instead of making it abstract), then in services.yaml manually specify the argument for each child class:
services:
App\Service\Child:
calls:
- setFooDependency: [App\Service\FooService]
But I'm not fond of this, because anyone extending the abstract class has to magically know to go and add the service definition.
I'm hoping I'm missing an easy solution? What I want is to:
Enforce child classes having a setter method (or some other way to inject the dependency)
Allow each child class to inject a different implementation of FooInterface
Use autowiring so I don't clutter my services file or confuse future devs

I think it's easier using the constructor:
abstract class Parent
{
protected FooInterface $fooDependency;
publich function __construct(FooInterface $fooDependency) :void
{
$this->fooDependency = $fooDependency;
}
}
Then you can define each implementation in services.yml without worring about calling a method:
YourNamespace\Child:
class: YourNamespace\Child
arguments: [#your_foo_implementation_alias_for_this_child]

Create a parent class (for example FooObject) for FooInterface and FooService.
Make FooInterface and FooService ... extends from this new class
Define $fooDependency as FooObject

What I want is to:
Enforce child classes having a setter method (or some other way to inject the dependency)
Allow each child class to inject a different implementation of FooInterface
Use autowiring so I don't clutter my services file or confuse future devs
There are various methods to achieve polymorphism in PHP, but it seems that you may be able to resolve this issue by defining an abstract method to retrieve the FooInterface instance instead of a setter method. This would enable you to inject a concrete FooInterface implementation directly into your constructor while maintaining immutability.
interface FooInterface
{
public function getName(): string;
}
class ConcreteFoo implements FooInterface
{
public function getName(): string
{
return 'a string';
}
}
abstract class Father
{
public function doSomething(): void
{
$name = $this->getFoo()->getName();
// ...
}
abstract protected function getFoo(): FooInterface;
}
class Child extends Father
{
private ConcreteFoo $foo;
public function __construct(ConcreteFoo $foo)
{
$this->foo = $foo;
}
protected function getFoo(): ConcreteFoo
{
return $this->foo;
}
}
By using this approach, your parent class will not depend on a property, but rather on a method that every child class must implement. This will allow for greater flexibility, maintainability, and the DI autowiring won't be a problem.

Related

How can I have an optional abstract method to avoid empty functions?

I currently have an abstract class which i am extending to other controllers. I have a abstract function within the abstract class which takes the value and places it in the __construct.
abstract class Controller extends BaseController {
abstract public function something();
public function __construct(Request $request) {
if (!is_null($this->something())){
$this->global_constructor_usse = $this->something();
}
}
}
My problem is that, on controllers that don't require this abstract function, I am having to place in the empty function.
class ControllerExample extends Controller {
public function something(){
return 'somethinghere';
}
}
Is there anyway to making the abstract function optional, or have a default value?
class EmptyControllerExample extends Controller {
public function something(){}
}
It is not possible to have a abstract method optional, as it is implied in PHP that all abstract methods must have an implementation.
There are legit use cases for optional abstract methods, yes: event handlers, metadata describers, etc. Unfortunately, you'll need to use regular, non-abstract methods with an empty body, and indicate in PHPDoc that they will do nothing unless extended.
Be wary, though: this can very quickly turn into code smell by diffusing a class responsability with their children. If you're dealing with generic events, you can look into Laravel's own event system, or the Observer pattern instead.
Abstract functions in a parent class, should only be used if its required by your application to implement the following method in all controllers who inherits from it, clearly it is not the case.
In this case i would make a trait. Here you create a trait which can be implemented by the classes who needs it. Notice the use keyword usage, use somethingTrait;
trait SomethingTrait
{
public function something()
{
echo "something called";
}
}
class Controller
{
use SomethingTrait;
public function run()
{
$this->something();
}
}
phpfiddle link
Another aproach could be doing a class inheritance structure, if the controllers you want to implement the methods has something in common. Where you would implement your special method in CrmController, where you still would be able to create shared methods in the abstract controller.
AbstractController
|
CrmController
|
CompanyController
For your question, 'Is there anyway to making the abstract function optional or have a default value?' No, and you are down the wrong path if you are trying to make abstract function optional. Hope my suggestions can help.

When do we should use abstract function or normal function in base class in PHP?

So I have a question about the difference between "when we should declare normal function" and "when we should declare abstract function" in base class. Look at my example.
In the abstract class:
abstract class Birds {
abstract public function fly();
}
class Swallow extends Birds {
public function fly() {
// This function override fly function in Birds class
echo "Implement fly function in Swallow class";
}
}
In the normal class:
class Birds {
public function fly() {
echo "Implement fly function in Birds class";
}
}
class Swallow extends Birds {
public function fly() {
// This function override fly function in Birds class
echo "Implement fly function in Swallow class";
}
}
What you can see. The fly function in Swallow class is inherited by Birds class (in all cases). They are a same thing. So I'm embarrassed and I dont know when we should declare abstract function in base class?
Thanks for your help!
Abstract functions are actually only an interface. E.g. there's no difference in your example between abstract class and if it would be an interface (that's because there's only abstract method).
//abstract class
abstract class Birds {
abstract public function fly();
}
//interface
interface Birds {
public function fly();
}
That's because abstract methods have the same purpose that interface's method. When you somewhere else create a function (or method or a class or another interface etc.), and you will require any Birds instance, you will be sure you have that abstract method avaiable, although it was not implemented in Birds.
public function sendBirdToSpace(Birds $bird) { //no matter what Bird subclass
$bird->fly(); //you're sure this method is avaiable
}
Also usually you will have more than one child class. When it comes to that, it's getting more clear about abstract method.
It's actually pretty simple. Should Birds have a default behaviour implementation of flying? That's all. If every bird should can fly, but there's no default method - make it abstract.
Taken from PHP OOP Class Abstraction:
When inheriting from an abstract class, all methods marked abstract in
the parent's class declaration must be defined by the child;
additionally, these methods must be defined with the same (or a less
restricted) visibility. For example, if the abstract method is defined
as protected, the function implementation must be defined as either
protected or public, but not private.
This is essentially saying that your Swallow class has to inherit (have) the fly() method in it if it extends the Bird class based off of its abstract definition.
The general rule of thumb when harnessing abstract methods is when you want normality among classes.
Take the following for example:
Class Car {
abstract public function make();
abstract public function model();
}
This is our "base" class. Anything that extends from this has to specify the make() & model() methods.
Class Tesla extends Car {
public function make() {}
public function mmodel() {}
}
As you see above, our Tesla class has the required methods within. If you do not include these methods, you'll have PHP errors thrown.
Note
If you're exploring this option of "container" like development, then I'd suggest that you have a good look at PHP OOP Object Interfaces too, well worth it!

How to use reflection as callback in php

I have one class
Class Mainclass{}
And another class which is
Class Childclass extends Mainclass{}
Now i want to write callback in Mainclass which check if child class found with method, merge value and return?
How can i achieve using reflection?
One easy way would be to create an interface containing that method
interface XYZ
{
public function myMethod();
}
And make your child class implement it
class Childclass extends Mainclass implements XYZ
{
public function myMethod()
{
//actual implementation
}
}
Afterwards, your main class can easily check if it is implementing that interface:
class Mainclass
{
public function whatever()
{
if ($this instanceof XYZ)
{
$this->myMethod();
}
}
}
Now, I'm fairly sure it would work but I really think this is bad design: a parent class should never depend on the implementation of its child classes. However since I don't know the context in which you're working, I'll leave this here and hope it helps you anyway.

PHP - Object instantiation context - Odd behaviour - Is it PHP bug?

I am not asking a typical question about why some code failed, yet I am asking about why it worked.It has worked with me while coding, and I needed it to fail.
Case
a base abstract class with a protected constructor declared abstract
a parent class extends the abstract class with public constructor (Over ridding)
a child class extends the very same abstract class with a protected constructor
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract protected function __construct();
}
class ChildClass extends BaseClass {
protected function __construct(){
echo 'It works';
}
}
class ParentClass extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
new ChildClass();
}
}
// $obj = new ChildClass(); // Will result in fatal error. Expected!
$obj = new ParentClass(); // that works!!WHY?
Question
Parent class instantiates child class object, and it works!!
how come it does?
as far as I know,object cannot be instantiated if its constructor declared protected, except only internally or from within any subclasses by inheritance.
The parent class is not a subclass of the child class,it doesn't inherit a dime from it ( yet both extend the same base abstract class), so how come instantiation doesn't fail?
EDIT
This case only happens with an abstract BaseClass that has also an abstract constructor.If BaseClass is concerete, or if its protected constructor is not abstract, instantiation fails as expected.. is it a PHP bug?
For my sanity, I need really an explanation to why PHP behaves this way in this very specific case.
Thanks in advance
Why it works?
Because from inside ParentClass you have granted access to the abstract method from BaseClass. It is this very same abstract method which is called from ChildClass, despite its implementation is defined on itself.
All relies in the difference between a concrete and an abstract method.
You can think like this: an abstract method is a single method with several implementations. On the other hand, each concrete method is a unique method. When it has the same name than its parent, it overrides the parent's one (it does not implement it).
So, when declared abstract, it is always the base class method which is called.
Think about a method declared abstract: Why the signatures of different implementations can't differ? Why can't the child classes declare the method with less visibility?
Anyway, you have just found a very interesting feature. Or, if my understanding above is not correct, and your expected behaviour is the truly expected behaviour, then you have found a bug.
Note: the following was tested with PHP 5.3.8. Other versions may exhibit different behavior.
Since there isn't a formal specification for PHP, there isn't a way of answering this from the point of view of what should happen. The closest we can get is this statement about protected from the PHP manual:
Members declared protected can be accessed only within the class itself and by inherited and parent classes.
Though the member may be overridden in ChildClass (keeping the "protected" specifier), it was originally declared in BaseClass, so it remains visible in descendants of BaseClass.
In direct opposition to this interpretation, compare the behavior for a protected property:
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
protected $_foo = 'foo';
abstract protected function __construct();
}
class MommasBoy extends BaseClass {
protected $_foo = 'foobar';
protected function __construct(){
echo __METHOD__, "\n";
}
}
class LatchkeyKid extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
echo 'In ', __CLASS__, ":\n";
$kid = new MommasBoy();
echo $kid->_foo, "\n";
}
}
$obj = new LatchkeyKid();
Output:
In LatchkeyKid:
MommasBoy::__construct
Fatal error: Cannot access protected property MommasBoy::$_foo in - on line 18
Changing the abstract __construct to a concrete function with an empty implementation gives the desired behavior.
abstract class BaseClass {
protected function __construct() {}
}
However, non-magic methods are visible in relatives, whether or not they're abstract (most magic methods must be public).
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract protected function abstract_protected();
protected function concrete() {}
}
class MommasBoy extends BaseClass {
/* accessible in relatives */
protected function abstract_protected() {
return __METHOD__;
}
protected function concrete() {
return __METHOD__;
}
}
class LatchkeyKid extends BaseClass {
function abstract_protected() {}
public function __construct() {
echo 'In ', __CLASS__, ":\n";
$kid = new MommasBoy();
echo $kid->abstract_protected(), "\n", $kid->concrete(), "\n";
}
}
$obj = new LatchkeyKid();
Output:
In LatchkeyKid:
MommasBoy::abstract_protected
MommasBoy::concrete
If you ignore the warnings and declare magic methods (other than __construct, __destruct and __clone) as protected, they appear to be accessible in relatives, as with non-magic methods.
Protected __clone and __destruct are not accessible in relatives, whether or not they're abstract. This leads me to believe the behavior of abstract __construct is a bug.
<?php
abstract class BaseClass {
abstract protected function __clone();
}
class MommasBoy extends BaseClass {
protected function __clone() {
echo __METHOD__, "\n";
}
}
class LatchkeyKid extends BaseClass {
public function __construct() {
echo 'In ', __CLASS__, ": \n";
$kid = new MommasBoy();
$kid = clone $kid;
}
public function __clone() {}
}
$obj = new LatchkeyKid();
Output:
In LatchkeyKid:
Fatal error: Call to protected MommasBoy::__clone() from context 'LatchkeyKid' in - on line 16
Access to __clone is enforced in zend_vm_def.h (specifically, ZEND_CLONE opcode handler). This is in addition to access checks for methods, which may be why it has different behavior. However, I don't see special treatment for accessing __destruct, so there's obviously more to it.
Stas Malyshev (hi, Stas!), one of the PHP developers, took a look into __construct, __clone and __destruct and had this to say:
In general, function defined in base class should be accessible to all
[descendents] of that class. The rationale behind it is that if you define
function (even abstract) in your base class, you saying it will be
available to any instance (including extended ones) of this class. So
any descendant of this class can use it.
[...] I checked why ctor behaves differently, and it's because parent ctor
is considered to be prototype for child ctor (with signature
enforcement, etc.) only if it's declared abstract or brought from the
interface. So, by declaring ctor as abstract or making it part of the
interface, you make it part of the contract and thus accessible to all
hierarchy. If you do not do that, ctors are completely unrelated to each
other (this is different for all other non-static methods) and thus
having parent ctor doesn't say anything about child ctor, so parent
ctor's visibility does not carry over. So for ctor is not a bug. [Note: this is similar to J. Bruni's answer.]
I still think it's most probably a bug for __clone and __destruct.
[...]
I've submitted bug #61782 to track the issue with __clone and __destruct.
EDIT: constructors act differenlty... It's expected to work even without abstract classes but I found this test that tests the same case and it looks like it's a technical limitation - the stuff explained below doesn't work with constructors right now.
There's no bug. You need to understand that access attributes work with objects' context. When you extend a class, your class will be able to see methods in BaseClass' context. ChildClass and ParentClass both in BaseClass context, so they can see all BaseClass methods. Why do you need it? For polymorphism:
class BaseClass {
protected function a(){}
}
class ChildClass extends BaseClass {
protected function a(){
echo 'It works';
}
}
class ParentClass extends BaseClass {
public function b(BaseClass $a) {
$a->a();
}
public function a() {
}
}
No matter what child you pass into ParentClass::b() method, you'll be able to access BaseClass methods (including protected, because ParentClass is BaseClass child and children can see protected methods of their parents). The same behaviour applies to constructors and abstract classes.
I wonder if there isn't something buggy w/ the abstract implementation under the hood, or if there is a subtle issue going on that we're missing. Changing BaseClass from abstract to concrete produces the fatal error you're after though (classes renamed for my sanity)
EDIT: I agree w/ what #deceze is saying in his comments, that it is an edge case of abstract implementation and potentially a bug. This is at least a work-around that provides the expected behavior albiet some ugly technique (feigned abstract base class).
class BaseClass
{
protected function __construct()
{
die('Psuedo Abstract function; override in sub-class!');
}
}
class ChildClassComposed extends BaseClass
{
protected function __construct()
{
echo 'It works';
}
}
// Child of BaseClass, Composes ChildClassComposed
class ChildClassComposer extends BaseClass
{
public function __construct()
{
new ChildClassComposed();
}
}
PHP Fatal error: Call to protected ChildClassComposed::__construct()
from context 'ChildClassComposer' in
/Users/quickshiftin/junk-php/change-private-of-another-class.php on
line 46

Abstract private functions

The following code will have PHP unhappy that customMethod() is private. Why is this the case? Is visibility determined by where something is declared rather than defined?
If I wanted to make customMethod only visible to boilerplate code in the Template class and prevent it from being overriden, would I just alternatively make it protected and final?
Template.php:
abstract class Template() {
abstract private function customMethod();
public function commonMethod() {
$this->customMethod();
}
}
CustomA.php:
class CustomA extends Template {
private function customMethod() {
blah...
}
}
Main.php
...
$object = new CustomA();
$object->commonMethod();
..
Abstract methods cannot be private, because by definition they must be implemented by a derived class. If you don't want it to be public, it needs to be protected, which means that it can be seen by derived classes, but nobody else.
The PHP manual on abstract classes shows you examples of using protected in this way.
If you fear that customMethod will be called outside of the CustomA class you can make the CustomA class final.
abstract class Template{
abstract protected function customMethod();
public function commonMethod() {
$this->customMethod();
}
}
final class CustomA extends Template {
protected function customMethod() {
}
}
Abstract methods are public or protected. This is a must.
Nothing in PHP that is private in a child class is visible to a parent class. Nothing that is private in a parent class is visible to a child class.
Remember, visibility must flow between the child class up to the parent class when using abstract methods in PHP. Using the visibility private in this scenario with PHP would completely encapsulate CustomA::customMethod inside of CustomA. Your only options are public or protected visibility.
Since you cannot make an instance of the abstract class Template, privacy from client-code is maintained. If you use the final keyword to prevent future classes from extending CustomA, you have a solution. However, if you must extend CustomA, you will have to live with how PHP operates for the time being.

Categories