We have a Laravel 8 application.
We're using the standard Laravel Auth facade to retrieve the authenticated user.
Our User model has a few custom functions, the most important of which is a shorthand function, hasPermissionTo(). (The reason why is because we have a very custom RBAC setup.)
So in a lot of our controllers, we have something like this...
use Illuminate\Routing\Controller as BaseController;
class ExampleController extends BaseController
{
public function index()
{
if (\Auth::user()->hasPermissionTo('Management:View Users')) {
// do something.
}
// etc.
}
}
That's all well and good until we start running static analysis. We're using Larastan, which is giving me these errors:
------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Http/Controllers/ExampleController.php
------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48 Call to an undefined method Illuminate\Contracts\Auth\Authenticatable::hasPermissionTo().
This also makes sense because the Auth facade proxies Illuminate\Auth\AuthManager and Auth::user(), via __call() magic, normally resolves to Illuminate\Auth\SessionGuard::user() and that typehints this...
/**
* Get the currently authenticated user.
*
* #return \Illuminate\Contracts\Auth\Authenticatable|null
*/
public function user()
{
...
So finally, my question:
Where is the failure here? Do I need to a) configure my static analysis tool better, b) configure Laravel better to more accurately return a specific type, or c) do I need to add explicit if (Auth::user() instanceof User) { ... } clauses all throughout my code?
Is there a correct way to override one of the Laravel stock classes with a more specific one of my own to address more specific functionality? Is there way to type-hint the actual authenticated User into the function declaration so I can declare function index(User $authenticatedUser) and have Laravel autopopulate this in with a more specific type hint?
I understand that I could just add an exclusion for this particular issue in Larastan and move on with my life, but the error is designed to protect against a specific class of error--i.e. if I added Auth0 and replaced App\Model\User with Auth0\Login\User, then I would have an Authenticatable class that fails to run hasPermissionTo(), and I'd have to now fix a bunch of code.
Eventually, this is how we worked around the problem. We added a type-hint for Larastan, so it can infer that $user has this HasRolesContract trait which provides hasPermissionTo().
public function index()
{
/** #var \App\Traits\HasRolesContract */
$user = \Auth::user();
if ($user->hasPermissionTo('Management:View Users')) {
Hopefully this helps someone else!
(Thanks for the nudge, #djjavo)
Related
I am trying to use a trait as a typehint for my Laravel resource controllers.
The controller method:
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Commentable $commentable)
In which the Commentable is the trait typehint which my Eloquent models use.
The Commentable trait looks like this:
namespace App\Models\Morphs;
use App\Comment;
trait Commentable
{
/**
* Get the model's comments.
*
* #return \Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Relations\MorphMany
*/
public function Comments()
{
return $this->morphMany(Comment::class, 'commentable')->orderBy('created_at', 'DESC');
}
}
In my routing, I have:
Route::resource('order.comment', 'CommentController')
Route::resource('fulfillments.comment', 'CommentController')
Both orders and fulfillments can have comments and so they use the same controller since the code would be the same.
However, when I post to order/{order}/comment, I get the following error:
Illuminate\Contracts\Container\BindingResolutionException
Target [App\Models\Morphs\Commentable] is not instantiable.
Is this possible at all?
So you want to avoid duplicate code for both order and fulfillment resource controllers and be a bit DRY. Good.
Traits cannot be typehinted
As Matthew stated, you can't typehint traits and that's the reason you're getting the binding resolution error. Other than that, even if it was typehintable, the container would be confused which model it should instantiate as there are two Commentable models available. But, we'll get to it later.
Interfaces alongside traits
It's often a good practice to have an interface to accompany a trait. Besides the fact that interfaces can be typehinted, you're adhering to the Interface Segregation principle which, "if needed", is a good practice.
interface Commentable
{
public function comments();
}
class Order extends Model implements Commentable
{
use Commentable;
// ...
}
Now that it's typehintable. Let's get to the container confusion issue.
Contexual binding
Laravel's container supports contextual binding. That's the ability to explicitly tell it when and how to resolve an abstract to a concrete.
The only distinguishing factor you got for your controllers, is the route. We need to build upon that. Something along the lines of:
# AppServiceProvider::register()
$this->app
->when(CommentController::class)
->needs(Commentable::class)
->give(function ($container, $params) {
// Since you're probably utilizing Laravel's route model binding,
// we need to resolve the model associated with the passed ID using
// the `findOrFail`, instead of just newing up an empty instance.
// Assuming this route pattern: "order|fullfilment/{id}/comment/{id}"
$id = (int) $this->app->request->segment(2);
return $this->app->request->segment(1) === 'order'
? Order::findOrFail($id)
: Fulfillment::findOrFail($id);
});
You're basically telling the container when the CommentController requires a Commentable instance, first check out the route and then instantiate the correct commentable model.
Non-contextual binding will do as well:
# AppServiceProvider::register()
$this->app->bind(Commentable::class, function ($container, $params) {
$id = (int) $this->app->request->segment(2);
return $this->app->request->segment(1) === 'order'
? Order::findOrFail($id)
: Fulfillment::findOrFail($id);
});
Wrong tool
We've just eliminated duplicate controller code by introducing unnecessary complexity which is as worse as that. 👍
Even though it works, it's complex, not maintainable, non-generic and worst of all, dependent to the URL. It's using the wrong tool for the job and is plain wrong.
Inheritance
The right tool to eliminate these kinda problems is simply inheritance. Introduce an abstract base comment controller class and extend two shallow ones from it.
# App\Http\Controllers\CommentController
abstract class CommentController extends Controller
{
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Commentable $commentable) {
// ...
}
// All other common methods here...
}
# App\Http\Controllers\OrderCommentController
class OrderCommentController extends CommentController
{
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Order $commentable) {
return parent::store($commentable);
}
}
# App\Http\Controllers\FulfillmentCommentController
class FulfillmentCommentController extends CommentController
{
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Fulfillment $commentable) {
return parent::store($commentable);
}
}
# Routes
Route::resource('order.comment', 'OrderCommentController');
Route::resource('fulfillments.comment', 'FulfillCommentController');
Simple, flexible and maintainable.
Arrrgh, wrong language
Not so fast:
Declaration of OrderCommentController::store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Order $commentable) should be compatible with CommentController::store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Commentable $commentable).
Even though overriding method parameters works in the constructors just fine, it simply does not for other methods! Constructors are special cases.
We could just drop the typehints in both parent and child classes and go on with our lives with plain IDs. But in that case, as Laravel's implicit model binding only works with typehints, there won't be any automatic model loading for our controllers.
Ok, maybe in a better world.
🎉Update: See PHP 7.4's support for type variance 🎉
Explicit route model binding
So what we gonna do?
If we explicitly tell the router how to load our Commentable models, we can just use the lone CommentController class. Laravel's explicit model binding works by mapping route placeholders (e.g. {order}) to model classes or custom resolution logics. So, while we're using our single CommentController we can utilize separate models or resolution logics for orders and fulfillments based on their route placeholders. So, we drop the typehint and rely on the placeholder.
For resource controllers, the placeholder name depends on the first parameter you pass to the Route::resource method. Just do a artisan route:list to find out.
Ok, let's do it:
# App\Providers\RouteServiceProvider::boot()
public function boot()
{
// Map `{order}` route placeholder to the \App\Order model
$this->app->router->model('order', \App\Order::class);
// Map `{fulfillment}` to the \App\Fulfilment model
$this->app->router->model('fulfillment', \App\Fulfilment::class);
parent::boot();
}
Your controller code would be:
# App\Http\Controllers\CommentController
class CommentController extends Controller
{
// Note that we have dropped the typehint here:
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, $commentable) {
// $commentable is either an \App\Order or a \App\Fulfillment
}
// Drop the typehint from other methods as well.
}
And the route definitions remain the same.
It's better than the first solution, as it does not rely on the URL segments which are prone to change contrary to the route placeholders which rarely change. It's also generic as all {order}s will be resolved to \App\Order model and all {fulfillment}s to the App\Fulfillment.
We could alter the first solution to utilize route parameters instead of URL segments. But there's no reason to do it manually when Laravel has provided it to us.
Yeah, I know, I don't feel good, too.
You can't typehint traits.
However, you can typehint interfaces. So you can create an interface that requires the methods from the trait and resolve that. Then have your classes implement that interface and you should be OK.
EDIT: As #Stefan has kindly pointed out, it's still likely to be difficult to resolve the interface to a concrete class because it will need to resolve to different classes under different circumstances. You could access the request in the service provider and use the path to determine how to resolve it, but I'm a bit dubious of that. I think putting them in separate controllers and using inheritance/traits to share common functionality may be a better bet, since the methods in each controller can type hint the required object, and then pass them to the equivalent parent method.
For my case I have following resources:
Route::resource('books/storybooks', 'BookController');
Route::resource('books/magazines', 'BookController');
After php artisan route:cache and it creates the route to tie up with 'magazine' model.
The solution is to add following line in app/Providers/RouteServiceProvider.php > boot() method, after parent::boot():
Route::model('magazine', \App\Book::class);
Pay attention to the singular and plural.
I'am a Brazilian developer, so... sorry for my limited English right away.
Well, in fact my problem is more a convention problem because until now I hadn't use services with Laravel (my apps were that simple so far).
I read about it before ask this question, but nothing helped with this specific situation. I'll try to describe in a objective way.
before that, just a comment: I know about the mistake using just controllers in these example. The ask is really about that mistake.
Well, the actual structure is:
abstract class CRUDController extends Controller {
protected function __construct($data, $validatorData) {
// store the data in a attribute
// create with Validator facade the validation and store too
}
abstract protected function createRecord();
protected function create() {
try {
// do the validation and return an Response instance with error messages
// if the data is ok, store in the database with models
// (here's where the magic takes place) in that store!
// to do that, calls the method createRecord (which is abstract)
$this->createRecord();
// return a success message in an Response instance
}
catch(\Exception $e) {
// return an Response instance with error messages
}
}
}
class UserController extends CRUDController {
public function __construct($data) {
parent::__construct($data, [
'rules' => [
// specific user code here
],
'messages' => [
// specific user code here
],
'customAttributes' => [
// specific user code here
]
]);
}
protected function createRecord() {
$user = new UserModel();
// store values here...
$user->save();
return $user;
}
}
// here's the route to consider in that example
Route::post('/user', 'WebsiteController#register');
class WebsiteController extends Controller {
private $request;
public function __construct(Request $request) {
$this->request = $request;
}
public function register() {
$user = new UserController();
$user->create($this->request);
// here's the problem: controller working with another controller
}
}
class UserAPIController extends Controller {
// use here the UserController too
}
and many other classes that extends CRUDController in the same way...
What I want
I want to create a controller (called here as CRUDController) to reuse methods like the pattern says (create, read, update and delete).
To be really objective here I'll use the create method as an example.
With the code above it seems clear the purpose? I think so... all my controllers have that code of validation equal and reusable. That's the thing.
Besides that, I want to my route of website call another controller (UserController) to store new users... but in the same way, I'll create an API that uses the same controller in the same way (with validations etc). That's the purpose of Responses in the CRUDController (I'll read them in the WebSiteController to resolve what to do, like show a view and in the other hand with the API I'll basically return the Response.
My real problem
Convention and pattern. The MVC pattern is broken here. Controller calling another controller is wrong and I know that.
I want to know what thing I should use! Services? Is that right? I see a lot (really) of examples of services but nothing like that, working with models and reusing code, etc. I never use Services but I know how to use, but I don't know if it's right to these cases.
I really hope that someone can help here and sorry once again for the mistakes with the English. Thanks a lot.
You're calling the CRUD controller a controller but it does not behave as an MVC controller. At best it's just a helper class. You could always do this:
abstract class CRUDManager {
//As you had the CRUDController
}
class UserManager extends CRUDManager {
//As you had the UserController
}
In your AppServiceProvider:
public function boot() {
$app->bind(UserManager::class, function ($app) {
return new UserManager(request()->all()); //I guess that's what you need.
});
}
Whenever you need to use it you can do:
public function register(UserManager $user) {
$user->create();
}
Now one thing to point out. It's not a good idea to initialise the request in the constructor. You should use dependency injection in controller methods. I don't even know if the request is available when the controller is being constructed (I know the session is not). The reason why I say this is that the middleware runs after the controller is constructed and therefore the request may be modified when the controller method is called.
Another note: If you did the original solution because you needed to use certain controller methods, then you can just use the corresponding traits (because the controller itself does not really have many method). I'm guessing a trait like ValidatesRequests would be one you'd need to use.
I'll answer my own question. I use a pattern called Repository Pattern to resolve the problem (or I try to use, because it's the first time using this pattern: maybe I don't use in the right way in every steps).
Files structure
Controllers
UserController.php
Models
UserModel.php
Providers
UserRepositoryServiceProvider.php
Repositories
RepositoryInterface.php
Repository.php
User
UserRepositoryInterface.php
UserRepository.php
Traits
InternalResponse.php
With that structure I did what I wanted in my question without working just with controllers.
I create a trait called InternalResponse. That trait contains a few methods that receive a transaction, validate if it's the case and then return a Response (called "internal" in my logic because the controller will read and maybe change the Response before return it in the end).
The Repository class, which is abstract (because another class must extend it to make sense to use. In this case the class UserRepository will extend...), uses the Trait mentioned.
Well, with it in mind, it's possible to know that the UserController uses the UserRepositoryInterface, that provides an object UserRepository: because the UserRepositoryServiceProvider register this with that interface.
I think there's no need to write code here to explain, because the problem is about an pattern, and these words explain well the problem (in the question) and the resolution with this answer here.
I'll write here a conclusion, I mean, the files structure with comments to explain a little bit more, to end the answer.
Conclusion: Files structure with comments
Controllers
UserController.php
// the controller uses dependency injection and call methods of
// UserRepository, read and changes the Response receveid to finally
// create the final Response, like returning a view or the response
// itself (in the case it's an API controller)
Models
UserModel.php
// an normal model
Providers
UserRepositoryServiceProvider.php
// register the UserRepositoryInterface to
// return a UserRepository object
Repositories
RepositoryInterface.php
// the main interface for the Repository
Repository.php
// the main repository. It's an abstract class.
// All the others repositories must extend that class, because
// there's no reason to use a class Repository without an Model
// to access the database... That class share methods like create,
// read, update and delete, and the methods validate and transaction
// too because uses the trait InternalResponse.
User
UserRepositoryInterface.php
// the interface for UserRepository class
UserRepository.php
// that class extend Repository and uses the UserModel
Traits
InternalResponse.php
// trait with methods like validate and transaction. the method
// validate, read and validate the data receveid for the methods
// create and update. and all the CRUD methods uses the method
// transaction to perform the data to the database and return a
// response of that action.
That's what I do and like I said before, I don't know if it's a hundred percent correct in reference to Repository Pattern.
I hope this can help someone else too.
Thanks for all.
I am currently facing a very interesting dilemma with my architecture and implementation.
I have an interface called ServiceInterface which have a method called execute()
Then I have two different implementations for this interface: Service1 and Service2, which implements the execute method properly.
I have a controller called MainController and this controller has a "type-hint" for the ServiceInterface (dependency injection), it means that both, Service1 and Service2, can be called as resolution for that dependency injection.
Now the fun part:
I do not know which of those implementations to use (Service1 or Service2) because I just know if I can use one or other based on a user input from a previous step.
It means the user choose a service and based on that value I know if a can use Service1 or Service2.
I am currently solving the dependency injection using a session value, so depending of the value I return an instance or other, BUT I really think that it is not a good way to do it.
Please, let me know if you faced something similar and, how do you solve it, or what can I do to achieve this in the right way.
Thanks in advance. Please let me know if further information is required.
Finally, after some days of researching and thinking a lot about the best approach for this, using Laravel, I finally solved it.
I have to say that this was especially difficult in Laravel 5.2 because, in this version, the Session middleware only is executed in the controllers used in a route, it means that if for some reason I used a controller (not linked for a rote) and try to get access to the session it is not going to be possible.
So, because I cannot use the session, I decided to use URL parameters. Here you have the solution approach; I hope some of you found it useful.
so, you have an interface:
interface Service
{
public function execute();
}
Then a couple of implementations for the interface:
Service one:
class ServiceOne implements Service
{
public function execute()
{
.......
}
}
Service two.
class ServiceTwo implements Service
{
public function execute()
{
.......
}
}
The interesting part is that I have a controller with a function with a dependency with the Service interface. Still, I need to resolve it dynamically to ServiceOne or ServiceTwo based on user input. So:
The controller
class MyController extends Controller
{
public function index(Service $service, ServiceRequest $request)
{
$service->execute();
.......
}
}
Please note that ServiceRequest, validated that the request already have the parameter that we need to resolve the dependency (call it 'service_name')
Now, in the AppServiceProvider we can resolve the dependency in this way:
class AppServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider
{
public function boot()
{
}
public function register()
{
//This specific dependency is going to be resolved only if
//the request has the service_name field stablished
if(Request::has('service_name'))
{
//Obtaining the name of the service to be used (class name)
$className = $this->resolveClassName(Request::get('service_name')));
$this->app->bind('Including\The\Namespace\For\Service', $className);
}
}
protected function resolveClassName($className)
{
$resolver = new Resolver($className);
$className = $resolver->resolveDependencyName();
return $className;
}
}
So now all the responsibility is for the Resolver class. This class basically use the parameter passed to the constructor to return the full name (with namespace) of the class that is going to be used as an implementation of the Service interface:
class Resolver
{
protected $name;
public function __construct($className)
{
$this->name = $className;
}
public function resolveDependencyName()
{
//This is just an example, you can use whatever as 'service_one'
if($this->name === 'service_one')
{
return Full\Namespace\For\Class\Implementation\ServiceOne::class;
}
if($this->name === 'service_two')
{
return Full\Namespace\For\Class\Implementation\ServiceTwo::class;
}
//If none, so throw an exception because the dependency can not be resolved
throw new ResolverException;
}
}
Well, I really hope it helps some of you.
Best wishes!
---------- EDIT -----------
I just realize that it is not a good idea to use the request data directly inside the container of Laravel. It really is going to cause some trouble in the long term.
The best way is to directly register all the possible instances supported (serviceone and servicetwo) and then resolve one of them directly from a controller or a middleware, so then is the controller "who decides" what service to use (from all the available) based on the input from the request.
In the end, it works at the same, but it is going to allow you to work more naturally.
I have to say thanks to rizqi, a user from the questions channel of the slack chat of Laravel.
He personally created a golden article about this. Please read it because it solves this issue completely and in a very right way.
laravel registry pattern
The fact that you define that your controller works with ServiceInterface is ok
If you have to choose the concrete implementation of the service basing on a previous step (that, as i've understood, happens in a previous request) storing the value in session or in database is right too, as you have no alternative: to choose the implementation you have to know the value of the input
The important point is to 'isolate' the resolution of the concrete implementation from the input value in one place: for example create a method that takes this value as a parameter and returns the concrete implementation of the service from the value:
public function getServiceImplementation($input_val)
{
switch($input_val)
{
case 1 : return new Service1();
case 2 : return new Service2();
}
}
and in your controller:
public function controllerMethod()
{
//create and assign the service implementation
$this->service = ( new ServiceChooser() )->getServiceImplementation( Session::get('input_val') );
}
In this example i've used a different class to store the method, but you can place the method in the controller or use a Simple Factory pattern, depending on where the service should be resolved in your application
It's an interesting problem. I'm currently using Laravel 5.5 and have been mulling it over. I also want my service provider to return a specific class (implementing an interface) based upon user input. I think it's better to manually pass the input from the controller so it's easier to see what's going on. I would also store the possible values of the class names in the config.
So based upon the Service classes and interface you've defined above i came up with this:
/config/services.php
return [
'classes': [
'service1' => 'Service1',
'service2' => 'Service2',
]
]
/app/Http/Controllers/MainController.php
public function index(ServiceRequest $request)
{
$service = app()->makeWith(ServiceInterface::class, ['service'=>$request->get('service)]);
// ... do something with your service
}
/app/Http/Requests/ServiceRequest.php
public function rules(): array
$availableServices = array_keys(config('services.classes'));
return [
'service' => [
'required',
Rule::in($availableServices)
]
];
}
/app/Providers/CustomServiceProvider.php
class CustomServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider
{
public function boot() {}
public function register()
{
// Parameters are passed from the controller action
$this->app->bind(
ServiceInterface::class,
function($app, $parameters) {
$serviceConfigKey = $parameters['service'];
$className = '\\App\\Services\\' . config('services.classes.' . $serviceConfigKey);
return new $className;
}
);
}
}
This way we can validate the input to ensure we are passing a valid service, then the controller handles passing the input from the Request object into the ServiceProvider. I just think when it comes to maintaining this code it will be clear what is going on as opposed to using the request object directly in the ServiceProvider.
PS Remember to register the CustomServiceProvider!
I find the best way to deal with this is using a factory pattern. You can create a class say ServiceFactory and it has a single method create() it can accept an argument which is used to dynamically choose which concrete class to instantiate.
It has a case statement based on the argument.
It will use App::make(ServiceOne::class) or App::make(ServiceTwo::class).depending on which one is required.
You are then able to inject this into your controller (or service which depends on the factory).
You can then mock it in a service unit test.
Recently, I had to implement a similar logic where I was to implement a method to perform mobile top-ups for multiple networks in our application. So, I decided to implement the logic using Factory and Bridge pattern. Factory to create an instance of the concrete Service class based on the user input, and then, the Bridge pattern to set closely related classes into separate hierarchies and route the request to the respective class.
In the controller's method, both Factory and Service classes are injected. The TopUpServiceFactory's create method creates an object of the concrete class. The TopUpService class then routes the request to that concrete class method.
class TopUpController extends Controller
{
public function topUp(Request $request, TopUpServiceFactoryInterface $serviceFactory, TopUpServiceInterface $topUpService)
{
$serviceFactory->create($request->networkCode);
$topUpService->TopUp($request->all());
}
}
The TopUpServiceFactoryInterface and TopUpServiceInterface are bound to TopUpServiceFactory and TopUpService concrete Classes respectively in Service Container.
class AppServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider
{
public function register()
{
$this->app->bind(TopUpServiceFactoryInterface::class, TopUpServiceFactory::class);
$this->app->bind(TopUpServiceInterface::class, TopUpService::class);
}
}
The create method accepts user input and creates an object of the respective class based on the user input.
class TopUpServiceFactory implements TopUpServiceFactoryInterface
{
public function create(string $networkCode)
{
switch ($networkCode) {
case 'network1':
app()->bind(NetworkServiceInterface::class, Network1Service::class);
break;
case 'network2':
app()->bind(NetworkServiceInterface::class, Network2Service::class);
break;
default:
app()->bind(NetworkServiceInterface::class, DefaultNetworkService::class);
break;
}
}
}
The Service Class then picks the object of NetworkService Class and forwards the request.
class TopUpService implements TopUpServiceInterface
{
public function topUp(array $requestParams)
{
$networkService = app()->get(NetworkServiceInterface::class);
$networkService->topUp($requestParams);
}
}
All network's concrete classes implement a common interface NetworkServiceInterface, which is used to inject dependency dynamically, implementing Liskov Substitution Principle
class Network1Service implements NetworkServiceInterface
{
public function topUp(array $requestParam)
{
Process Topup ......
}
}
class Network2Service implements NetworkServiceInterface
{
public function topUp(array $requestParam)
{
Process Topup ......
}
}
...
I am using Laravel 5.1 and have set up a Repository pattern. I have the concrete implementations of my repos injected into my controllers. I realize that your SUPPOSED to inject the interface but that over complicates my API and doesn't solve my issue. I have a client config that simply contains a string such as '' and I am already using that globally to use model overrides if they exist.
So, for example, if I have client 'yahoo' and they have an override in my Overrides/Yahoo/Models/User.php then it will use this User.php. Whether its an extension of the base User model or a whole new implementation is up to me.
I am trying to do the same thing for my repositories. I want to be able to put an override file in Overrides/Yahoo/Repos/UserRepository.php and on injection it will either use the base User repository or the override if it exists.
Any ideas of how I can accomplish this? I realize that you can inject a repository interface and use a binding but I want to do this globally. If you can tell me how I can abstract that functionality to automatically bind the correct implementation of the interface based on client config I would accept that.
You can resolve your concrete implementation by the configuration you use, but it requires that you use interfaces.
Example configuration (config/client.php):
<?php
return [
'users' => [
'repository' => \App\Overrides\Yahoo\Repos\UserRepository::class,
],
];
In your AppServiceProviders register method:
/**
* Register any application services.
*
* #return void
*/
public function register()
{
$this->app->bind(
UserRepositoryInterface::class,
config('client.users.repository')
);
}
In your Yahoo UserRepository, you can then inject the Yahoo User model directly:
<?php
namespace App\Overrides\Yahoo\Repos;
use App\Repos\UserRepositoryInterface;
use App\Overrides\Yahoo\Models\User;
class UserRepository implements UserRepositoryInterface
{
private $user;
public function __construct(User $user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
// TODO: Implement UserRepositoryInterface methods
}
Finally, in your UserController you can inject the UserRepositoryInterface and it will bind the concrete implementation based on your configuration:
<?php
namespace App\Http\Controllers;
use App\Repos\UserRepositoryInterface;
class UserController extends Controller
{
private $users;
public function __construct(UserRepositoryInterface $users)
{
$this->users = $users;
}
}
It might seem overkill at first, but once you set up everything it's pretty easy to add new overrides.
You could even create a base concrete implementation of the UserRepository and make every override repository inherit from it. This way you don't have to re-implement all methods required by the interface, but you stay flexible when the user repositories use different database technologies (SQL, MondoDB...)
Read books From Apprentice To Artisan and Implementing Laravel by Chris Fidao and now i don't know how to correctly work with Models in Repositories.
In Implementing laravel book author is working with models in this way:
Example #1
<?php
use MyApp\Interfaces\UserInterface;
use Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Model;
class UserRepository implements UserInterface
{
protected $user;
public function __construct(Model $user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
public function find($userId)
{
return $this->user->find($userId);
}
}
But that can by done in other way, not injecting Model as a dependency, like this:
Example #2
Built example using tutorial http://culttt.com/2013/07/08/creating-flexible-controllers-in-laravel-4-using-repositories/
<?php
use MyApp\Interfaces\UserInterface;
use MyApp\Models\User\User;
class UserRepository implements UserInterface
{
public function find($userId)
{
return User::with('profile')->find($userId);
}
}
Why in first example Model is injected, why not use directly Model like in example two?
Which way is correct and why ?
Also which way will be more testable with integrated to laravel UnitTest package ?
The example 2 is bad because it's coupling your repository to a particular implementation of the User model.
Every time you use your repository it'll need to instantiate Univemba\Models\User\User. The whole idea of Dependency Injection is to inject (send) in to your object whatever dependencies it has. If your object needs a Model to work with you can send it a Laravel Eloquent Model, but any of your co-workers could also need to send to it a Doctrine Model. But if you couple your class to Eloquent, this isn't possible.
So in the first example, there is no instantiation happening on your code and it's not using a concrete class directly as in the second:
return User::with('profile')->find($userId);
It is receiving an implementation in the process of its instantiation:
public function __construct(Model $user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
There are better ways to do that, because it is still expecting a concrete class while it should be expecting an implementation of an interface
public function __construct(ModelInterface $user)
{
$this->user = $user;
}
In this case you just need to pass to your object something that implements ModelInterface, which could be
Univemba\Models\EloquentModel
Or
Univemba\Models\DoctrineModel
Because both would be implementing
Univemba\Models\ModelInterface
I think if a Repository is intended to be the Eloquent implementation of a RepositoryInterface it isn't a bad idea to use the EloquentModel directly.