I am developing a Symfony 3 application. Symfony profiler logs tell me:
Relying on service auto-registration for type "App\Entity\SubDir\Category"
is deprecated since version 3.4 and won't be supported in 4.0.
Create a service named "App\Entity\SubDir\Category" instead.
Yet, this is a simple ORM bean:
/**
* #ORM\Entity
* #ORM\Table(name="category")
*/
class Category
{
...
How should I get rid of this issue? Do I really need to declare ORM entities as services in services.yaml? If yes, how?
Update
In fact, my entity is in a sub directory. I have amended my question.
In my service.yaml, I have tried:
App\:
resource: '../src/*'
exclude: '../src/{Entity,Repository,Tests,Entity/SubDir}'
...but to no avail.
Do you have any Classes under Service-auto registration which use an Entity as constructor argument?
That's where your problem comes from.
You need to ask yourself if the concerning class really is a service or just a plain object of which you always create the instance yourself.
If it is not used as a service through the container you have 2 options:
You can exclude this class also through the glob pattern like for example
AppBundle\:
resource: '...'
# you can exclude directories or files
# but if a service is unused, it's removed anyway
exclude: '../../{Entity,PathToYourNotService}'
or you can set the following parameter in your config
parameters:
container.autowiring.strict_mode: true
with this option the container won't try to create a service class with arguments that are not available as services and you will get a decisive error. This is the default setting for sf4
A good example for a class that triggers exactly this error would be a custom event class that takes an entity as payload in the constructor:
namespace AppBundle\Event;
use AppBundle\Entity\Item;
use Symfony\Component\EventDispatcher\Event;
class ItemUpdateEvent extends Event
{
const NAME = 'item.update';
protected $item;
public function __construct(Item $item)
{
$this->item = $item;
}
public function getItem()
{
return $this->item;
}
}
Now if this file isn't excluded specifically the container will try to auto register it as service. And because the Entity is excluded it can't autowire it. But in 3.4 there's this fallback which triggers this warning.
Once the strict_mode is activated the event just won't be available as service and if you tried using it as one an error would rise.
Related
I am developing a Symfony 3 application. Symfony profiler logs tell me:
Relying on service auto-registration for type "App\Entity\SubDir\Category"
is deprecated since version 3.4 and won't be supported in 4.0.
Create a service named "App\Entity\SubDir\Category" instead.
Yet, this is a simple ORM bean:
/**
* #ORM\Entity
* #ORM\Table(name="category")
*/
class Category
{
...
How should I get rid of this issue? Do I really need to declare ORM entities as services in services.yaml? If yes, how?
Update
In fact, my entity is in a sub directory. I have amended my question.
In my service.yaml, I have tried:
App\:
resource: '../src/*'
exclude: '../src/{Entity,Repository,Tests,Entity/SubDir}'
...but to no avail.
Do you have any Classes under Service-auto registration which use an Entity as constructor argument?
That's where your problem comes from.
You need to ask yourself if the concerning class really is a service or just a plain object of which you always create the instance yourself.
If it is not used as a service through the container you have 2 options:
You can exclude this class also through the glob pattern like for example
AppBundle\:
resource: '...'
# you can exclude directories or files
# but if a service is unused, it's removed anyway
exclude: '../../{Entity,PathToYourNotService}'
or you can set the following parameter in your config
parameters:
container.autowiring.strict_mode: true
with this option the container won't try to create a service class with arguments that are not available as services and you will get a decisive error. This is the default setting for sf4
A good example for a class that triggers exactly this error would be a custom event class that takes an entity as payload in the constructor:
namespace AppBundle\Event;
use AppBundle\Entity\Item;
use Symfony\Component\EventDispatcher\Event;
class ItemUpdateEvent extends Event
{
const NAME = 'item.update';
protected $item;
public function __construct(Item $item)
{
$this->item = $item;
}
public function getItem()
{
return $this->item;
}
}
Now if this file isn't excluded specifically the container will try to auto register it as service. And because the Entity is excluded it can't autowire it. But in 3.4 there's this fallback which triggers this warning.
Once the strict_mode is activated the event just won't be available as service and if you tried using it as one an error would rise.
I'm working on a bundle for Symfony 4 that is structured like this:
\Acme
\FooBundle
\Article
\Entity
- Article.php
- Comment.php
\Form
- ArticleType.php
\Repository
- ArticleRepository.php
- CommentRepository.php
- ArticleManager.php
\User
\Entity
- User.php
\Repository
- UserRepository.php
- UserManager.php
\SomethingElse
\Entity
- SomethingElse.php
\Repository
- SomethingElseRepository.php
- SomethingElseManager.php
There are many more folders and entities, but is irrelevant for the question.
Autowiring all the classes in that folder can be created with a config like this one:
Acme\FooBundle\:
resource: '../../*/{*Manager.php,Repository/*Repository.php}'
exclude: '../../{Manager/BaseManager.php,Repository/BaseRepository.php}'
autowire: true
But when you need to add service tags like doctrine.repository_service, this kind of configuration won't help no more. Without the tag, when using in controller like:
$this->getDoctrine()->getRepository(Bar::class)
or
$this->getDoctrine()->getManager()->getRepository(Bar::class)
it throws an error:
The "Acme\FooBundle\SomethingElse\Repository\SomethingElseRepository" entity repository implements "Doctrine\Bundle\DoctrineBundle\Repository\ServiceEntityRepositoryInterface", but its service could not be found. Make sure the service exists and is tagged with "doctrine.repository_service".
The thing is that, since they all reside in the same root folder I'm not allowed to use a config like the following one, because it would have duplicated Acme\FooBundle\ keys:
Acme\FooBundle\:
resource: '../../*/{*Manager.php}'
exclude: '../../{Manager/BaseManager.php}'
autowire: true
Acme\FooBundle\:
resource: '../../*/{Repository/*Repository.php}'
exclude: '../../{Repository/BaseRepository.php}'
autowire: true
tags: ['doctrine.repository_service']
So, I was wondering if there's a workaround that I couldn't find or I should just manually add each and every service?
Edit:
It would have been a nice feature to be able to use an annotation in the class so when it's loaded it "knows" it's tag, but I'm thinking it works the other way around, loading a class because is was tagged with a certain tag.
I had the same error message after upgrading to symfony 4.4 from 3.4.
The issue seemed to be that the entity had an annotation to #ORM\Entity(repositoryClass="App\Repository\MyRepository")
while the repository extends ServiceEntityRepository and in the constructor points to the entity parent::__construct($registry, MyEntity::class);.
Removing the annotation on the entity fixed the issue.
I encountered the same error message after refactoring (renaming) some entities and the related repositories using PhpStorm 2019.2 The refactor did not update the repository class name in the doc block for the entity:
* #ORM\Entity(repositoryClass="App\Repository\OldRepository")
So I used right-click > Copy Reference to get the fully qualified name of NewRepository and pasted it in to the doc block reference:
* #ORM\Entity(repositoryClass="\App\Repository\NewRepository")
PhpStorm prefixed the class with a backslash and I didn't notice until after trying many combinations of suggested solutions for this error. I only needed to remove the backslash and the error is gone:
* #ORM\Entity(repositoryClass="App\Repository\NewRepository")
You can autoconfigure tags in your Kernel / Main Bundle Class:
https://symfony.com/doc/current/service_container/tags.html#autoconfiguring-tags
<?php
namespace Acme\FooBundle;
use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Bundle\Bundle;
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ContainerBuilder;
class FooBundle extends Bundle
{
public function build(ContainerBuilder $container)
{
parent::build($container);
$container->registerForAutoconfiguration(EntityRepository::class)
->addTag('doctrine.repository_service');
}
}
You can tag all of your repositories, like this:
App\Repository\:
resource: '../src/Repository'
autowire: true
tags: ['doctrine.repository_service']
Thanks #t-van-den-berg and #arleigh-hix !
I had this problem after migrating from Symfony 3.4 to 4.4, when I wanted to use old Repositories with new services.
My solution was a little variation:
use App\Repository\NewRepository;
//...
/**
* #ORM\Entity(repositoryClass=NewRepository::class)
*/
And service declaration (to use Interface):
App\Repository\NewRepository:
arguments:
- "#doctrine"
App\Repository\NewRepositoryInterface: '#App\Repository\NewRepository'
I want to pass the EntityManager instance into the constructor of my controller, using this code:
namespace AppBundle\Controller;
use Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Controller\Controller;
use Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager;
class UserController extends Controller
{
public function __construct( EntityManager $entityManager )
{
// do some stuff with the entityManager
}
}
I do the constructor injection by putting the parameters into the service.yml file:
parameters:
# parameter_name: value
services:
# service_name:
# class: AppBundle\Directory\ClassName
# arguments: ["#another_service_name", "plain_value", "%parameter_name%"]
app.user_controller:
class: AppBundle\Controller\UserController
arguments: ['#doctrine.orm.entity_manager']
the service.yml is included in the config.yml and when I run
php bin/console debug:container app.user_controller
I get:
Information for Service "app.user_controller"
=============================================
------------------ -------------------------------------
Option Value
------------------ -------------------------------------
Service ID app.user_controller
Class AppBundle\Controller\UserController
Tags -
Public yes
Synthetic no
Lazy no
Shared yes
Abstract no
Autowired no
Autowiring Types -
------------------ -------------------------------------
However, calling a route which is mapped to my controller, I get:
FatalThrowableError in UserController.php line 17: Type error:
Argument 1 passed to
AppBundle\Controller\UserController::__construct() must be an instance
of Doctrine\ORM\EntityManager, none given, called in
/home/michel/Documents/Terminfinder/vendor/symfony/symfony/src/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Controller/ControllerResolver.php
on line 202
I cant figure out, why the EntityManager is not getting injected?
When using the base classController.php the Container is usually auto-wired by the framework in theControllerResolver.
Basically you are trying to mix up how things actually work.
To solve your problem you basically have two solutions:
Do no try to inject the dependency but fetch it directly from the Container from within your action/method.
public function listUsers(Request $request)
{
$em = $this->container->get('doctrine.orm.entity_manager');
}
Create a controller manually but not extend the Controller base class; and set ip up as a service
To go a bit further on this point, some people will advise to do not use the default Controller provided by Symfony.
While I totally understand their point of view, I'm slightly more moderated on the subject.
The idea behind injecting only the required dependencies is to avoid and force people to have thin controller, which is a good thing.
However, with a little of auto-determination, using the existing shortcut is much simpler.
A Controller / Action is nothing more but the glue between your Views and your Domain/Models.
Prevent yourself from doing too much in your Controller using the ContainerAware facility.
A Controller can thrown away without generate business changes in your system.
Since 2017 and Symfony 3.3+, there is native support for controllers as services.
You can keep your controller the way it is, since you're using constructor injection correctly.
Just modify your services.yml:
# app/config/services.yml
services:
_defaults:
autowire: true
AppBundle\:
resouces: ../../src/AppBundle
It will:
load all controllers and repositories as services
autowire contructor dependencies (in your case EntityManager)
Step further: repositories as services
Ther were many question on SO regarding Doctrine + repository + service + controller, so I've put down one general answer to a post. Definitelly check if you prefer constructor injection and services over static and service locators.
Did you use following pattern to call the controller AppBundle:Default:index? if yes that should be the problem. If you want to use controller as a service you have to use the pattern: app.controller_id:indexAction which uses the id of the service to load the controller.
Otherwise it will try to create an instance of the class without using the service container.
For more information see the symfony documentation about this topic https://symfony.com/doc/current/controller/service.html
The entity manager is available in a controller without needing to inject it. All it takes is:
$em = $this->getDoctrine()->getManager();
Currently I'm working on testing some services in Symfony2 and I'm trying to use Guzzle MockPlugin for controlling CURL responses. Symfony version 2.3.8 is used. I've got to an interesting behaviour and I'm not sure if this is a Symfony2 bug or not.
I have these services in services.yml:
lookup_service_client:
class: FOO
public: false
factory_service: lookup_client_builder
factory_method: build
lookup_repository_auth_type:
class: AuthType
arguments: ["#lookup_service_client"]
lookup_repository_cancel_reason:
class: CancelReason
arguments: ["#lookup_service_client"]
payment_service_client:
class: FOO
public: false
factory_service: payment_client_builder
factory_method: build
payment_repository:
class: Payment
arguments: ["#payment_service_client"]
The name of the classes are not important. You can see that both "lookup_service_client" and "lookup_service_client" are PRIVATE services.
I have a test class, which extends Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Test\WebTestCase. In one test I need to do something like:
$lookup = $this->client->getContainer()->get('lookup_service_client');
$payment = $this->client->getContainer()->get('payment_service_client');
I expected that, setting those services as PRIVATE, will not let me retrieve the services from container in tests, but the actual result is:
$lookup = $this->client->getContainer()->get('lookup_service_client'); => returns the service instance
$payment = $this->client->getContainer()->get('payment_service_client'); => returns an exception saying: "You have requested a non-existent service"
The only difference between those tow service_client services is that "lookup_service_client" is injected in several other services, while "payment_service_client" is injected in only one other service.
So, the questions are:
Why I can retrieve from container "lookup_service_client", since I've set it to private?
Why I can retrieve "lookup_service_client", but cannot retrieve "payment_service_client" since the only difference is presented above?
Is it a Symfony2 bug that I can access private service?
There were some new changes regarding this in Symfony 4.1:
In Symfony 4.1, we did the same and now tests allow fetching private services by default.
In practice, tests based on WebTestCase and KernelTestCase now access to a special container via $client->getContainer() or the static::$container property that allows to fetch non-removed private services.
You can read more about it in the news post.
While this is not a bug, it is definitely counter intuitive. The manual specifically says:
Now that the service is private, you should not fetch the service
directly from the container:
$container->get('foo');
This may or may not work, depending on how the container has optimized
the service instanciation and, even in the cases where it works, is
deprecated. Simply said: A service can be marked as private if you do
not want to access it directly from your code.
Which is why the core team has decided to make this behavior more consistent and intuitive in Symfony 4:
Setting or unsetting a private service with the Container::set() method is deprecated in Symfony 3.2 and no longer supported in 4.0;
Checking the existence of a private service with the Container::has() will always return false in Symfony 4.0;
Requesting a private service with the Container::get() method is deprecated in Symfony 3.2 and no longer returns the service in 4.0.
2018+ and Symfony 3.4/4.0+ solution
This approach with all its pros/cons is described in this post with code examples.
The best solution to access private services is to add a Compiler Pass that makes all services public for tests. That's it. How does it look in practice?
1. Update Kernel
use Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Kernel;
+use Symplify\PackageBuilder\DependencyInjection\CompilerPass\PublicForTestsCompilerPass;
final class AppKernel extends Kernel
{
protected function build(ContainerBuilder $containerBuilder): void
{
$containerBuilder->addCompilerPass('...');
+ $containerBuilder->addCompilerPass(new PublicForTestsCompilerPass());
}
}
2. Require or create own Compiler Pass
Where PublicForTestsCompilerPass looks like:
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\Compiler\CompilerPassInterface;
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ContainerBuilder;
final class PublicForTestsCompilerPass implements CompilerPassInterface
{
public function process(ContainerBuilder $containerBuilder): void
{
if (! $this->isPHPUnit()) {
return;
}
foreach ($containerBuilder->getDefinitions() as $definition) {
$definition->setPublic(true);
}
foreach ($containerBuilder->getAliases() as $definition) {
$definition->setPublic(true);
}
}
private function isPHPUnit(): bool
{
// defined by PHPUnit
return defined('PHPUNIT_COMPOSER_INSTALL') || defined('__PHPUNIT_PHAR__');
}
}
To use this class, just add the package by:
composer require symplify/package-builder
But of course, the better way is to use own class, that meets your needs (you might Behat for tests etc.).
Then all your tests will keep working as expected!
Let me know, how that works for you.
Check them in the container:
container:debug lookup_service_client
container:debug payment_service_client
in your example they both have class "FOO", maybe that's the case
In a Symfony2 project, when you use a Controller, you can access Doctrine by calling getDoctrine() on this, i.e.:
$this->getDoctrine();
In this way, I can access the repository of such a Doctrine Entity.
Suppose to have a generic PHP class in a Symfony2 project. How can I retrieve Doctrine ?
I suppose that there is such a service to get it, but I don't know which one.
You can register this class as a service and inject whatever other services into it. Suppose you have GenericClass.php as follows:
class GenericClass
{
public function __construct()
{
// some cool stuff
}
}
You can register it as service (in your bundle's Resources/config/service.yml|xml usually) and inject Doctrine's entity manager into it:
services:
my_mailer:
class: Path/To/GenericClass
arguments: [doctrine.orm.entity_manager]
And it'll try to inject entity manager to (by default) constructor of GenericClass. So you just have to add argument for it:
public function __construct($entityManager)
{
// do something awesome with entity manager
}
If you are not sure what services are available in your application's DI container, you can find out by using command line tool: php app/console container:debug and it'll list all available services along with their aliases and classes.
After checking the symfony2 docs i figured out how to pass your service
in a custom method to break the default behavior.
Rewrite your configs like this:
services:
my_mailer:
class: Path/To/GenericClass
calls:
- [anotherMethodName, [doctrine.orm.entity_manager]]
So, the Service is now available in your other method.
public function anotherMethodName($entityManager)
{
// your magic
}
The Answer from Ondrej is absolutely correct, I just wanted to add this piece of the puzzle to this thread.