So I have a complicated onboarding process that does several steps. I created a class that handles the process but I've added a few more steps and I'd like to refactor this into something a bit more manageable. I refactored to use Laravel's pipeline, but feel this may not be the best refactor due to the output needing to be modified before each step.
Here is an example before and after with some pseudo code.
before
class OnboardingClass {
public $user;
public $conversation;
public function create($firstName, $lastName, $email){
// Step 1
$user = User::create();
// Step 2
$conversation = Conversation::create(); // store information for new user + existing user
// Step 3
$conversation->messages()->create(); // store a message on the conversation
// Step 4
// Send api request to analytics
// Step 5
// Send api request to other service
return $this;
}
}
after
class OnboardingClass{
public $user;
public $conversation;
public function create($firstName, $lastName, $email){
$data = ['first_name' => $firstName, ...]; // form data
$pipeline = app(Pipeline::Class);
$pipeline->send($data)
->through([
CreateUser::class,
CreateNewUserConversation::class,
AddWelcomeMessageToConversation::class,
...
])->then(function($data){
// set all properties returned from last class in pipeline.
$this->user = $data['user'];
$this->conversation = $data['conversation'];
});
return $this;
}
}
Now within each class I modify the previous data and output a modified version something like this
class CreateUser implements Pipe {
public function handle($data, Closure $next) {
// do some stuff
$user = User::create():
return $next([
'user' => $user,
'other' => 'something else'
]);
}
}
In my controller I am simply calling the create method.
class someController() {
public function store($request){
$onboarding = app(OnboardingClass::class);
$onboarding->create('John', 'Doe', 'john#example.com');
}
}
So the first pipe receives the raw form fields and outputs what the second pipe needs to get the job done in its class, then the next class outputs the data required by the next class, so on and so forth. The data that comes into each pipe is not the same each time and you cannot modify the order.
Feels a bit weird and I'm sure there is a cleaner way to handle this.
Any design pattern I can utilize to clean this up a bit?
I think you could try using Laravel Service Provider, for example, you could build a login service provider; or Event & Listener, for example, you could build an listener for login and triggers a event to handle all the necessary logics. Can't really tell which one is the best since outcome is the same and it makes same amount of network requests, but it's more on personal preferences
Related
I have an API written using Symfony2 that I'm trying to write post hoc tests for. One of the endpoints uses an email service to send a password reset email to the user. I'd like to mock out this service so that I can check that the right information is sent to the service, and also prevent an email from actually being sent.
Here's the route I'm trying to test:
/**
* #Route("/me/password/resets")
* #Method({"POST"})
*/
public function requestResetAction(Request $request)
{
$userRepository = $this->get('app.repository.user_repository');
$userPasswordResetRepository = $this->get('app.repository.user_password_reset_repository');
$emailService = $this->get('app.service.email_service');
$authenticationLimitsService = $this->get('app.service.authentication_limits_service');
$now = new \DateTime();
$requestParams = $this->getRequestParams($request);
if (empty($requestParams->username)) {
throw new BadRequestHttpException("username parameter is missing");
}
$user = $userRepository->findOneByUsername($requestParams->username);
if ($user) {
if ($authenticationLimitsService->isUserBanned($user, $now)) {
throw new BadRequestHttpException("User temporarily banned because of repeated authentication failures");
}
$userPasswordResetRepository->deleteAllForUser($user);
$reset = $userPasswordResetRepository->createForUser($user);
$userPasswordResetRepository->saveUserPasswordReset($reset);
$authenticationLimitsService->logUserAction($user, UserAuthenticationLog::ACTION_PASSWORD_RESET, $now);
$emailService->sendPasswordResetEmail($user, $reset);
}
// We return 201 Created for every request so that we don't accidently
// leak the existence of usernames
return $this->jsonResponse("Created", $code=201);
}
I then have an ApiTestCase class that extends the Symfony WebTestCase to provide helper methods. This class contains a setup method that tries to mock the email service:
class ApiTestCase extends WebTestCase {
public function setup() {
$this->client = static::createClient(array(
'environment' => 'test'
));
$mockEmailService = $this->getMockBuilder(EmailService::class)
->disableOriginalConstructor()
->getMock();
$this->mockEmailService = $mockEmailService;
}
And then in my actual test cases I'm trying to do something like this:
class CreatePasswordResetTest extends ApiTestCase {
public function testSendsEmail() {
$this->mockEmailService->expects($this->once())
->method('sendPasswordResetEmail');
$this->post(
"/me/password/resets",
array(),
array("username" => $this->user->getUsername())
);
}
}
So now the trick is to get the controller to use the mocked version of the email service. I have read about several different ways to achieve this, so far I've not had much luck.
Method 1: Use container->set()
See How to mock Symfony 2 service in a functional test?
In the setup() method tell the container what it should return when it's asked for the email service:
static::$kernel->getContainer()->set('app.service.email_service', $this->mockEmailService);
# or
$this->client->getContainer()->set('app.service.email_service', $this->mockEmailService);
This does not effect the controller at all. It still calls the original service. Some write ups I've seen mention that the mocked service is 'reset' after a single call. I'm not even seeing my first call mocked out so I'm not certain this issue is affecting me yet.
Is there another container I should be calling set on?
Or am I mocking out the service too late?
Method 2: AppTestKernel
See: http://blog.lyrixx.info/2013/04/12/symfony2-how-to-mock-services-during-functional-tests.html
See: Symfony2 phpunit functional test custom user authentication fails after redirect (session related)
This one pulls me out of my depth when it comes to PHP and Symfony2 stuff (I'm not really a PHP dev).
The goal seems to be to change some kind of foundation class of the website to allow my mock service to be injected very early in the request.
I have a new AppTestKernel:
<?php
// app/AppTestKernel.php
require_once __DIR__.'/AppKernel.php';
class AppTestKernel extends AppKernel
{
private $kernelModifier = null;
public function boot()
{
parent::boot();
if ($kernelModifier = $this->kernelModifier) {
$kernelModifier($this);
$this->kernelModifier = null;
};
}
public function setKernelModifier(\Closure $kernelModifier)
{
$this->kernelModifier = $kernelModifier;
// We force the kernel to shutdown to be sure the next request will boot it
$this->shutdown();
}
}
And a new method in my ApiTestCase:
// https://stackoverflow.com/a/19705215
protected static function getKernelClass(){
$dir = isset($_SERVER['KERNEL_DIR']) ? $_SERVER['KERNEL_DIR'] : static::getPhpUnitXmlDir();
$finder = new Finder();
$finder->name('*TestKernel.php')->depth(0)->in($dir);
$results = iterator_to_array($finder);
if (!count($results)) {
throw new \RuntimeException('Either set KERNEL_DIR in your phpunit.xml according to http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/testing.html#your-first-functional-test or override the WebTestCase::createKernel() method.');
}
$file = current($results);
$class = $file->getBasename('.php');
require_once $file;
return $class;
}
Then I alter my setup() to use the kernel modifier:
public function setup() {
...
$mockEmailService = $this->getMockBuilder(EmailService::class)
->disableOriginalConstructor()
->getMock();
static::$kernel->setKernelModifier(function($kernel) use ($mockEmailService) {
$kernel->getContainer()->set('app.service.email_service', $mockEmailService);
});
$this->mockEmailService = $mockEmailService;
}
This works! However I now can't access the container in my other tests when I'm trying to do something like this:
$c = $this->client->getKernel()->getContainer();
$repo = $c->get('app.repository.user_password_reset_repository');
$resets = $repo->findByUser($user);
The getContainer() method returns null.
Should I be using the container differently?
Do I need to inject the container into the new kernel? It extends the original kernel so I don't really know why/how it's any different when it comes to the container stuff.
Method 3: Replace the service in config_test.yml
See: Symfony/PHPUnit mock services
This method requires that I write a new service class that overrides the email service. Writing a fixed mock class like this seems less useful than a regular dynamic mock. How can I test that certain methods have been called with certain parameters?
Method 4: Setup everything inside the test
Going on #Matteo's suggestion I wrote a test that did this:
public function testSendsEmail() {
$mockEmailService = $this->getMockBuilder(EmailService::class)
->disableOriginalConstructor()
->getMock();
$mockEmailService->expects($this->once())
->method('sendPasswordResetEmail');
static::$kernel->getContainer()->set('app.service.email_service', $mockEmailService);
$this->client->getContainer()->set('app.service.email_service', $mockEmailService);
$this->post(
"/me/password/resets",
array(),
array("username" => $this->user->getUsername())
);
}
This test fails because the expected method sendPasswordResetEmail wasn't called:
There was 1 failure:
1) Tests\Integration\Api\MePassword\CreatePasswordResetTest::testSendsEmail
Expectation failed for method name is equal to <string:sendPasswordResetEmail> when invoked 1 time(s).
Method was expected to be called 1 times, actually called 0 times.
Thanks to Cered's advice I've managed to get something working that can test that the emails I expect to be sent actually are. I haven't been able to actually get the mocking to work so I'm a bit reluctant to mark this as "the" answer.
Here's a test that checks that an email is sent:
public function testSendsEmail() {
$this->client->enableProfiler();
$this->post(
"/me/password/resets",
array(),
array("username" => $this->user->getUsername())
);
$mailCollector = $this->client->getProfile()->getCollector('swiftmailer');
$this->assertEquals(1, $mailCollector->getMessageCount());
$collectedMessages = $mailCollector->getMessages();
$message = $collectedMessages[0];
$this->assertInstanceOf('Swift_Message', $message);
$this->assertEquals('Reset your password', $message->getSubject());
$this->assertEquals('info#example.com', key($message->getFrom()));
$this->assertEquals($this->user->getEmail(), key($message->getTo()));
$this->assertContains(
'This link is valid for 24 hours only.',
$message->getBody()
);
$resets = $this->getResets($this->user);
$this->assertContains(
$resets[0]->getToken(),
$message->getBody()
);
}
It works by enabling the Symfony profiler and inspecting the swiftmailer service. It's documented here: http://symfony.com/doc/current/email/testing.html
during unit testing i'm always get confused about what to test.
Do i need to test the API and only the API or also the method result values.
class SomeEventHandler
{
public function onDispatch (Event $event)
{
if ($event->hasFoo)
{
$model = $this->createResponseModel('foo');
}
else
{
$model = $this->createResponseModel('bar');
}
// End.
return $model;
}
private function createResponseModel ($foo)
{
$vars = array(
'someVare' => true,
'foo' => $foo
);
// End.
return new ResponseModel($vars);
}
}
So should i test if the method onDispatch returns a instance of ResponseModel or should i also test if the variable foo is set properly?
Or is the test below just fine?
class SomeEventHandlerTest
{
// assume that a instance of SomeEventHandler is created
private $someEventHandler;
public function testOnDispatch_EventHasFoo_ReturnsResponseModel ()
{
$e = new Event();
$e->hasFoo = true;
$result = $someEventHandler->onDispatch($e);
$this->assertInstanceOf('ResponseModel', $result);
}
public function testOnDispatch_EventHasNoFoo_ReturnsResponseModel ()
{
$e = new Event();
$e->hasFoo = false;
$result = $someEventHandler->onDispatch($e);
$this->assertInstanceOf('ResponseModel', $result);
}
}
If you were checking the code by hand what is it that you would check? Just that a ResponseModel was returned or that it also had the proper values?
If you weren't writing tests and executed the code what would you look for to ensure that the code was doing what it was supposed to. You would check that the values in the returned object were correct. I would do that by using the public API of the object and verify that the values are right.
One idea is to have the tests such that if the code were deleted, you would be able to recreate all the functionality via only having the tests. Only checking the returned object could result in a function that just has return new ResponseModel();. This would pass the test but would not be what you want.
In short, what you decide to test is subjective, however you should at the minimum test all your public methods.
Many people limit their tests to public methods and simply ensure code coverage on the protected/private methods is adequate. However, feel free to test anything you think warrants a test. Generally speaking, the more tests the better.
In my opinion you should certainly test for your response data, not just the return type.
I rely on Unit Tests to let me make code changes in the future and be satisfied my changes have not created any breaks, just by running the tests.
So in your case, if the "foo" or "bar" response data is important, you should test it.
That way if you later change the response strings by accident, your tests will tell you.
How do I get started with mocking a web service in PHP? I'm currently directly querying the web API's in my unit testing class but it takes too long. Someone told me that you should just mock the service. But how do I go about that? I'm currently using PHPUnit.
What I have in mind is to simply save a static result (json or xml file) somewhere in the file system and write a class which reads from that file. Is that how mocking works? Can you point me out to resources which could help me with this. Is PHPUnit enough or do I need other tools? If PHPUnit is enough what part of PHPUnit do I need to check out? Thanks in advance!
You would mock the web service and then test what is returned. The hard coded data you are expecting back is correct, you set the Mock to return it, so then additional methods of your class may continue to work with the results. You may need Dependency Injection as well to help with the testing.
class WebService {
private $svc;
// Constructor Injection, pass the WebService object here
public function __construct($Service = NULL)
{
if(! is_null($Service) )
{
if($Service instanceof WebService)
{
$this->SetIWebService($Service);
}
}
}
function SetWebService(WebService $Service)
{
$this->svc = $Service
}
function DoWeb($Request)
{
$svc = $this->svc;
$Result = $svc->getResult($Request);
if ($Result->success == false)
$Result->Error = $this->GetErrorCode($Result->errorCode);
}
function GetErrorCode($errorCode) {
// do stuff
}
}
Test:
class WebServiceTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
// Simple test for GetErrorCode to work Properly
public function testGetErrorCode()
{
$TestClass = new WebService();
$this->assertEquals('One', $TestClass->GetErrorCode(1));
$this->assertEquals('Two', $TestClass->GetErrorCode(2));
}
// Could also use dataProvider to send different returnValues, and then check with Asserts.
public function testDoWebSericeCall()
{
// Create a mock for the WebService class,
// only mock the getResult() method.
$MockService = $this->getMock('WebService', array('getResult'));
// Set up the expectation for the getResult() method
$MockService->expects($this->any())
->method('getResult')
->will($this->returnValue(1)); // Change returnValue to your hard coded results
// Create Test Object - Pass our Mock as the service
$TestClass = new WebService($MockService);
// Or
// $TestClass = new WebService();
// $TestClass->SetWebServices($MockService);
// Test DoWeb
$WebString = 'Some String since we did not specify it to the Mock'; // Could be checked with the Mock functions
$this->assertEquals('One', $TestClass->DoWeb($WebString));
}
}
This mock may then be used in the other functions since the return is hard coded, your normal code would process the results and perform what work the code should (Format for display, etc...). This could also then have tests written for it.
I am trying to follow a tutorial for Zend Auth and Zend Acl using 1.11 framework Link here!
I have setup the authentication successfully and am able to use the authentication for the controller::action pairs given in the Acl.php page. Firstly I would like to test two additional parameter on the users table that whether the user account is activated and if the user is banned by administrator before allowing access to the site. How do I implement that in this code.
Secondly I would like to know how to include all actions under one controller to a User authorization level. i.e. I have a masters controller which has numerous actions under it for various tables. Could you tell me how to restrict access to Masters controller all actions to admin role only. Without adding resources and allow resources for each action in Acl.php. Also please tell me if this logic can be extended to allow access over entire modules instead of just the controllers(by one add resource and allow resource)? If yes how?
Firstly I would like to test two additional parameter on the users
table that whether the user account is activated and if the user is
banned by administrator before allowing access to the site.
The tutorial code uses a vanilla version of Zend_Auth_Adapter_DbTable which uses a specific api for authentication. To make Zend_Auth work how you want it to is not very difficult but will require some thought as you'll need to implement Zend_Auth_Adapter_Interface. Sounds worse then it is, you only have to implement the authenticate() method. Here is an example of an auth adapter that can be used in place of Zend_Auth_Adapter_DbTable:
<?php
//some code truncated for length and relevance
class My_Auth_Adapter implements Zend_Auth_Adapter_Interface
{
protected $identity = null;
protected $credential = null;
protected $usersMapper = null;
public function __construct($username, $password, My_Model_Mapper_Abstract $userMapper = null)
{
if (!is_null($userMapper)) {
$this->setMapper($userMapper);
} else {
$this->usersMapper = new Users_Model_Mapper_User();
}
$this->setIdentity($username);
$this->setCredential($password);
}
/**
* #return \Zend_Auth_Result
*/
public function authenticate()
{
// Fetch user information according to username
$user = $this->getUserObject();
if (is_null($user)) {
return new Zend_Auth_Result(
Zend_Auth_Result::FAILURE_IDENTITY_NOT_FOUND,
$this->getIdentity(),
array('Invalid username')
);
}
// check whether or not the hash matches
$check = Password::comparePassword($this->getCredential(), $user->password);
if (!$check) {
return new Zend_Auth_Result(
Zend_Auth_Result::FAILURE_CREDENTIAL_INVALID,
$this->getIdentity(),
array('Incorrect password')
);
}
// Success!
return new Zend_Auth_Result(
Zend_Auth_Result::SUCCESS,
$this->getIdentity(),
array()
);
}
// public function setIdentity($userName)
// public function setCredential($password)
// public function setMapper($mapper)
/**
* #return object
*/
private function getUserObject()
{
return $this->getMapper()->findOneByColumn('username', $this->getIdentity());
}
/**
* #return object
*/
public function getUser()
{
$object = $this->getUserObject();
$array = array(
'id' => $object->id,
'username' => $object->username,
'role' => $object->getRoleId()
);
return (object) $array;
}
// public function getIdentity()
// public function getCredential()
// public function getMapper()
}
You can modify the auth adapter to do pretty much anything you need.
As far as your access list is concerned, the thing to remember is that you resources are defined by a string. In the case of this tutorial a resource is defined as:
$this->add(new Zend_Acl_Resource('error::error'));
where the string on the left side of the colon represents the controller and the string on the right side of the colon represents the action. it's this line in the acl plugin that tell's us what the resources are:
if(!$acl->isAllowed($user->role, $request->getControllerName() . '::' . $request->getActionName()))
you can change this definition of what your resources represent to anything that works for you.
It's very difficult to provide hard and fast rules on how to implement an ACL because it seems that every project needs something different.
Look around the web and you'll find several different implementations of a Zend Framework ACL, some of them can be very complex.
Here is one that might provide some more insight. http://codeutopia.net/blog/2009/02/06/zend_acl-part-1-misconceptions-and-simple-acls/
good luck
I'm using PHP 5.3's class_alias to help process my Symfony 1.4 (Doctrine) forms. I use a single action to process multiple form pages but using a switch statement to choose a Form Class to use.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
switch($request->getParameter('page')) {
case 'page-1':
class_alias('MyFormPage1Form', 'FormAlias');
break;
...
}
$this->form = new FormAlias($obj);
}
This works brilliantly when browsing the website, but fails my functional tests, because when a page is loaded more than once, like so:
$browser->info('1 - Edit Form Page 1')->
get('/myforms/edit')->
with('response')->begin()->
isStatusCode(200)->
end()->
get('/myforms/edit')->
with('response')->begin()->
isStatusCode(200)->
end();
I get a 500 response to the second request, with the following error:
last request threw an uncaught exception RuntimeException: PHP sent a warning error at /.../apps/frontend/modules/.../actions/actions.class.php line 225 (Cannot redeclare class FormAlias)
This makes it very hard to test form submissions (which typically post back to themselves).
Presumably this is because Symfony's tester hasn't cleared the throughput in the same way.
Is there a way to 'unalias' or otherwise allow this sort of redeclaration?
As an alternate solution you can assign the name of the class to instantiate to a variable and new that:
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
$formType;
switch($request->getParameter('page')) {
case 'page-1':
$formType = 'MyFormPage1Form';
break;
...
}
$this->form = new $formType();
}
This doesn't use class_alias but keeps the instantiation in a single spot.
I do not know for sure if it is possible, but judging from the Manual, I'd say no. Once the class is aliased, there is no way to reset it or redeclare it with a different name. But then again, why do use the alias at all?
From your code I assume you are doing the aliasing in each additional case block. But if so, you can just as well simply instantiate the form in those blocks, e.g.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
switch($request->getParameter('page')) {
case 'page-1':
$form = new MyFormPage1Form($obj);
break;
...
}
$this->form = $form;
}
You are hardcoding the class names into the switch/case block anyway when using class_alias. There is no advantage in using it. If you wanted to do it dynamically, you could create an array mapping from 'page' to 'className' and then simply lookup the appropriate class.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
$mapping = array(
'page-1' => 'MyFormPage1Form',
// more mappings
);
$form = NULL;
$id = $request->getParameter('page');
if(array_key_exists($id, $mapping)) {
$className = $mapping[$id];
$form = new $className($obj);
}
$this->form = $form;
}
This way, you could also put the entire mapping in a config file. Or you could create FormFactory.
public function executeEdit(sfWebRequest $request) {
$this->form = FormFactory::create($request->getParameter('page'), $obj);
}
If you are using the Symfony Components DI Container, you could also get rid of the hard coded factory dependency and just use the service container to get the form. That would be the cleanest approach IMO. Basically, using class_alias just feels inappropriate here to me.
function class_alias_once($class, $alias) {
if (!class_exists($alias)) {
class_alias($class, $alias);
}
}
This doesn't solve the problem itself, but by using this function it is ensured that you don't get the error. Maybe this will suffice for your purpose.