Where to put business logic in Lumen? - php

I am developing my first API with Lumen. Normally I am using services for separating business logic or reused code from the controllers and share it with other controllers.
How to do this with lumen? Where to put the services? I only see ServiceProviders to register these services but for me it's not clear where and how to define them.

Lumen and its big brother Laravel come with a service container, which handles the dependencies injection.
To resolve things out of the container, you may either type-hint the dependency you need on a class that is already automatically resolved by the container, such as a route Closure, controller constructor, controller method, middleware, event listener, or queued job. Or, you may use the app function from anywhere in your application:
$instance = app(Something::class);
That's for "resolving things out". Registering the "things" is what the service providers are for. A service provider is just a class that extends Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider and binds interfaces or classes to concrete implementations. (Read the docs for a detail on how to write your own.)
Example:
Create some test route:
$app->get('/test', 'TestController#test');
and create the controller method, type-hinting a parameter:
public function test(DatabaseManager $dbm)
{
dd($dbm);
}
You will see that the DatabaseManager interface is resolved to a concrete class, properly instantiated and configured with your DB config. That's because at some point the framework is calling a service provider which takes care of doing that.
Any custom providers you may want to include are set in /bootstrap/app.php like so:
$app->register(App\Providers\AuthServiceProvider::class);
(Otherwise if you ask for a class that hasn't been bound by a provider, the framework just injects a new instance of that class.)
So, for this problem you probably want some repository class where you can encapsulate all database access.
Example:
// app/Repositories/ProductRepository.php
private $db;
public function __construct(DatabaseManager $dbm)
{
$this->db = $dbm->connection();
}
public function findById($id)
{
return $this->db->table('products')->where('id', '=', $id)->get();
}
//routes.php
$app->get('products/{id}', 'ProductsController#show');
//ProductsController.php
public function show(ProductRepository $repo, $id)
{
$product = $repo->findById($id);
dd($product);
}
It's interesting in this example that you call for a ProductRepository injection, and, since it has a DatabaseManager dependency, the framework handles the instantiation of both.
I hope this begins to answer your question about managing business logic in service providers. I guess another typical use case is authorization handling. You can follow the docs on this subject after this intro.

Services as a Service class? Service classes are not part of a framework, it's more like an application architecture problem you are trying to solve here.
Depending on the project you are working on, either a Services folder in the app folder (if you go for the folders by type structure) or the feature folder it belongs to (if you go for app folders by feature style). These are just 2 of the many possible ways for folder structures.
It's different for every project so, it's up to you to decide where to put the service classes and how you are going to structure your app.
Remember to stick to one convention throughout the project development cycle. If you can't think of it right now, structure your classes later in the refactoring sessions. I usually get a lot more ideas when I am working on something else rather than at the start when I am thinking about it.

Related

How to implement your own Faker provider in Symfony

In order to reduce some code duplication in my fixture classes, I would like to create a custom provider for Faker (fakerphp/faker) in my Symfony 5 application. Where can I create a custom faker provider in my application? Please note that I am new to developing in Symfony.
Related to this topic I have found this question for Laravel, but of course Symfony has a different project setup.
Reading up to the documentation of a related library, I would expect I could use $faker->addProvider(), but then again I do not know where this code should live in my Symfony application.
I fantasize I should make a Service for this functionality, or maybe I should just add it to my BaseFixture class? But these are just wild guesses for me.
Where you put your provider is a subjective question. Some use src/Test/ (or namespace App\Test) for test related code that is not actual tests. Others will place it next to the tests somewhere in the tests/ directory, e.g. tests/Faker/ (with namespace App\Tests\Faker). The benefit of the latter is, that the classes will only be picked up by autoload-dev and not in production.
Regarding the second part of your question, how to add the provider to Faker that depends on how you use it in your tests or more precisely, if you want to fetch a shared faker instance from your container or manually create one. Especially if your provide relies on other services like Doctrine you probably want to register it in the container or you should rethink your provider as relying on the database might cause issues, e.g. when you reset your test database, the data pool for your provider might be gone.
I would go for creating a faker instance in your tests as the cost of initiating Faker is relatively low, it should not noticeably slow down your tests if done multiple times, and you will be forced to avoid tying the provider to services from your production code accidentally. You will also have more control over how you create your faker instance and which providers you want to load for specific tests, if that is relevant for you. For instance you could create an instance in the setUp method of your tests:
class MyTest extends TestCase
{
private $faker;
protected function setUp(): void
{
// The Faker\Factory will create a ready to use Faker Generator
$this->faker = Factory::create();
$this->faker->addProvider(new MyCustomProvider());
}
public function testSomething(): void
{
$title = $this->faker->title;
}
}
The Factory will create a new Faker\Generator with all the default providers already registered. You can look at the code if you'd rather only have your own providers in there. Instead of copying this code in each test you can share it, e.g. by creating your own TestCase-class that your tests extend instead of the one provided by PHPUnit or you could use a trait. I think either approach is fine, but probably having your own base TestCase if you are not yet familiar with Traits.
With the setUp method above you can also look at how Symfony's Service Container works, especially how to create services through a factory and then, for example create a config/services_test.yaml where you create a faker instance that you can get in tests extending the WebTestCase or KernelTestCase after booting your Symfony kernel.

Private functions in Laravel 5 service containers

I'm building an app with Laravel 5.1 using my own service providers to separate some business logic, but I can't seem to find a way to acces other methods of the service provider from within itself.
Using the function name tries to look for something in the namespace App\Providers and there's no $this because it's singleton pattern, so how can I do it? Does it have to "use" itself?
I also don't want an external helper as this function would be specific to this service.
Simply enough it can be done using self::method() or static::method() but your method has to be declared as static.

Dependency resolving design pattern

I am looking for a php implementation or a design pattern something like this (just a very basic skeleton example):
namespace Contract {
interface Application {...}
interface EntryPoint {...}
}
namespace RestApi {
class Module {
/** #return Contract\EntryPoint */
public function getEntryPoint(Contract\Application $application){...}
}
class EntryPoint implements Contract\EntryPoint {...}
}
namespace BusinessLogic {
class Module {
/** #return Contract\Application */
public function getApplication(){...}
}
class Application implements Contract\Application {...}
}
$dependencyResolver = new DependencyResolver();
$dependencyResolver->parse(new RestApi\Module());
$dependencyResolver->parse(new BusinessLogic\Module());
$dependencyResolver->invoke(function (Contract\EntryPoint $entryPoint){
$entrypoint->handleRequest();
});
I want to loose couple every modules I am using in my application, so I intend to design interfaces, maybe abstract classes with validation to make a well defined interface for every module type. I haven't found a solution for this problem, ppl usually inject things with IoC container, which does not tell anything about the common interface between two modules...
Do you know a design pattern which solves this problem, or a de factor standard php implementation/framework for this?
note: IoC container is not a solution, I want to inject the dependencies with well defined interfaces, not to pull them from a DI container or service locator... I don't want my modules to know anything about how they get their dependencies...
edit:
I updated my question because I don't think my code was obvious for everyone. A created a class diagram to ease the understanding of it:
Okay, so this diagram contains a description of a single environment. We usually use different environments for example: test, development, production, etc... Each of these environment contains different modules, for example by testing and developing we usually turn off email sending, so one of the modules contains a mock php mailer in those environments... As you see by cross-module dependency the classes depend on contracts, not directly on each other. This way the code of the modules is loose coupled...
I intend to describe this dependencies (for example with annotations) and inject them on an automated way somehow. This is a difficult task, because by PHP I have to load only the classes which are necessary to handle the request. For example:
So I have to use lazy load somehow, for example I could inject factories, but I don't like that idea, I want to inject the dependency itself, not a factory...
Be aware that the contract interface does not know anything about its implementations, so I have to publish somehow those implementations by every module and find them from the other modules... Most of the DI container implementations solve that problem, but I don't want to inject factories or DI containers into my modules. I want them to depend on the contracts only and nothing else...
Matthieu Napoli recommended to use just a single IoC container with different config by each of the environments, but I don't see how this would solve my problem. That DI container would instantiate every class with cross-module dependency, so I would move the whole config of every modules into a huge main config file. Even by a simple project I'd have about 20 classes (languages, users, identification-factors, user-identification-factors, contacts, user-contacts, roles, user-roles, permissions, role-permissions, articles, comments, etc...) and at least 3 modules (presentation layer, business logic layer, data access layer). So that main config would contain the instantiation of at least 60 classes from different modules... That would be pretty hard to maintain and I am almost certain that it would result a lot of code repetition by configs of different environments... Yes maybe splitting the config files can reduce the pain, but I guess I wont know the advantages and drawbacks of this solution until I start to use it on a complicated project. Another problem with this approach that how should I implement the lazy load without injecting the IoC container itself into every class with cross-module dependency? I think I need proof or example code, that this approach really works well by this problem domain...
Currently I am thinking on something similar than require.js does with AMD javascript modules, but that injects the IoC container as well by lazy load. You have to use the require("moduleName") from inside the modules if you want to load a dependency which you don't want to use in your code, just in case when it's really necessary. Ofc that require is just a sugar syntax of container.get("moduleName")... Currently I don't see how to solve that problem. I think every of my modules should have one or more DI containers, call them module containers. Those module containers can handle the cross-module dependencies. By lazy load the module containers would pull down the cross-module dependencies of each class from a main container, which would automatically register every module container and every class instantiated by them. In this scenario only the module containers would know about the main container if I cannot solve lazy load without injecting a factory or a DI container or a service locator... Ofc this is the last resort, I think I can do the lazy load somehow without injecting the main container into the module containers. Or at least I can do it somehow with a sugar syntax, for example:
class ModuleContainer {
public function setCrossDomainDependency(Contract\Dep $crossDomainDependency){
//...
}
/** #return Contract\Dep */
public function getCrossDomainDependency(){
//...
}
}
My purpose to use the same ModuleContainer instance regardless of having a MainContainer. I'll check the reflection api, maybe I am able to override the getCrossDomainDependency somehow at runtime. If not then I think the only solution to inject factories or the main container... Nah but this is my solution...
How would you solve this problem?
A IoC container is exactly the solution.
I want to inject the dependencies with well defined interfaces, not to pull them from a DI container or service locator
Then don't use the container as a service locator. That's exactly what a DI container is meant for.
Here is your example using PHP-DI:
$containerBuilder = new ContainerBuilder();
$container = containerBuilder->build();
// Configure RestApi\EntryPoint to use for Contract\EntryPoint
$container->set(Contract\EntryPoint::class, \DI\link(RestApi\EntryPoint::class));
// Configure BusinessLogic\Application to use for Contract\Application
$container->set(Contract\Application::class, \DI\link(BusinessLogic\Application::class));
// Run
$entryPoint = $container->get(Contract\EntryPoint::class);
$entryPoint->handleRequest();
Of course my example here is not perfect. I would suggest to separate the configuration part from the execution part. I would put the configuration in a configuration file (look here for how).
Important: Yes, in that example I fetch something from the container. That is exceptional. That should happen only once or twice in your application.
You have to use the container at some point, at the root of your application (i.e. the entry point of the app), to construct the object graph (or dependency graph).
I am not suggesting that you call get() on the container everytime you need a dependency. I am suggesting that you use dependency injection instead, and that you call get() only at the entry point of the application.
Example of defining with a factory:
$container->set(Contract\EntryPoint::class, \DI\factory(function (Container $c) {
return new RestApi\EntryPoint($c->get('some.parameter'));
}));

DI Container and the tailored MVC

I have build a in-house MVC PHP framework and now I am struggling on implementing DI Container. I've adopted the Pimple as a DiC, I have read the book by Chris Hartjes "The Grumpy Programmer's Guide To Building Testable PHP Applications" (which I find a very good and inspiring read, will recommend it highly!), which talks eased me to understand more about TDD. Anyway, If I get a DI in the core of the framework, how should I populate the definitions and ho should I pass it along.
Injecting the container(Injecting in the application object all the way to the user created controller). - WRONG
Forcing the dev-user to 'populate' it in the Bootstrap - WRONG
Singleton - VERY WRONG
Observer Pattern (DiC attached to the observer. Observer as a front end to DiC) - ?(Probably the worst idea :D )
Then how to make the core DiC available in the whole framework (for, lets say, injecting the Configuration Object), without creating any dependencies, unnecessary forcing the user to code it or adding the overhead of creating XML/JSON or any other.
PS:
** I do believe that I will see a lot of answers about the Inversion-of-Control (IoC) and Service Locator. Which I cant seem to get exactly how to implement them.. Reference me to a simple/basic guide.
(disclaimer, I'm the developer of PHP-DI)
I don't really understand your question, it seems to me that if you have full control over the MVC framework, then using DI and a DIC should be pretty easy. Here is a copy of the introduction to DI on PHP-DI homepage:
Application needs FooController so:
Application gets FooController from the Container, so:
Container creates SomeRepository
Container creates BarService and gives it SomeRepository
Container creates FooController and gives it BarService
Application calls FooController
FooController calls BarService
BarService calls SomeDependency
SomeRepository does something
The Container is in charge of creating all the objects (the object graph), and then the non-framework code (controllers, services, …) works without EVER calling the Container.
Then how to make the core DiC available in the whole framework?
Do not make it available in the whole framework.
Each component (object) should have its dependencies injected (for example in the constructor). The container will inject them (because the container creates all the objects), and the container should be called at the root of your application (the front controller).
Example: you want to inject the Configuration object in a controller:
class MyController {
private $configuration;
public function __construct(Configuration $configuration) {
$this->configuration = $configuration;
}
}
Since that the role of the DIC to create that controller, it will inject the configuration object.
Also, I don't think you should inject the whole configuration object, but just the values you are interested in (but that's another debate).
And also, if you have questions about how to write your controllers, maybe you should read this: Controllers as services?.

Composing a Controller class with Dependency Injection in PHP

How to solve the problem of composing a Controller class in PHP, which should be:
easily testable by employing Dependency Injection,
provide shared objects for end programmer
provide a way to load new user libraries
Look down, for controller instantiation with a Dependency injection framework
The problem is, that derived Controllers may use whatever resources the programmer wants to (eg. the framework provides). How to create a unified access to shared resources (DB, User, Storage, Cache, Helpers), user defined Classes or another libraries?
Elegant solution?
There are several possible solutions to my problem, but neither one looks to be a elegant
Try to pass all shared objects by constructor? (may create constructor even with 10 placeholders)
Create getters, settters? (bloated code) $controller->setApplication($app)
Apply singletons on shared resources? User::getInstance() or Database::getInstance()
Use Dependency Injection container as a singleton for object sharing inside the controller?
provide one global application singleton as a factory? (this one looks very used in php frameworks, hovewer it goes strongly against DI principles and Demeter's law)
I understand, that creating strongly coupled classes is discouraged and banished for :), however I don't know how this paradigm applies to a starting point for other programmers (a Controller class), in which they should be able to access shared resources provided to the MVC architecture. I believe, that breaking up the controller class into smaller classes would somehow destroy the practical meaning of MVC.
Dependency Injection Framework
DI Framework looks like a viable choice. However the problem still persists. A class like Controller does not reside in the Application layer, but in the RequestHandler/Response layer.
How should this layer instantiate the controller?
pass the DI injector into this layer?
DI Framework as a singleton?
put isolated DI framework config only for this layer and create separate DI injector instance?
Are you developing a framework yourself? If not, your question does not apply, because you have to choose from already existing frameworks and their existing solutions. In this case your question must be reformulated like "how do I do unit testing/dependency injection in framework X".
If you are developing a framework on you own, you should check first how already existing ones approach this issue. And you must also elaborate your own requirements, and then just go with the simplest possible solution. Without requirements, your question is purely aesthetic and argumentative.
In my humble opinion the simplest solution is to have public properties which initialize to defaults provided by your framework, otherwise you can inject your mocks here. (This equals to your getters/setters solution, but without the mentioned bloat. You do not always need getters and setters.) Optionally, if you really need it, you may provide a constructor to initialize those in one call (as you suggested).
Singletons are an elegant solution, but again, you must ask yourself, is it applicable in your case? If you have to have different instances of the same type of object in your application, you can't go with it (e.g. if you wish to mock a class only in half of your app).
Of course it is really awesome to have all the options. You can have getters/setter, constructors, and when initialization is omitted, default are taken from a singleton factory. But having too many options when not needed, is not awesome, it is disturbing as the programmer has to figure out which convention, option and pattern to use. I definitely do not want to make dozens of design decisions just to get a simple CRUD running.
If you look at other frameworks you will see that there is no silver bullet. Often a single framework utilizes different techniques depending on the context. In controllers, DI is a really straightforward thing, look at CakePHP's $helpers, $components variables, which instruct to inject appropriate variables into the controller class. For the application itself a singleton is still a good thing, as there is always just a single application. Properties less often changed/mocked are injected utilizing public properties.
In case of an MVC, subclassing is perfectly viable option as well: just as AppController, AppView, AppModel in CakePHP. They are inserted into the class hierarchy between the frameworks's and all your particular Controller, View and Model classes. This way you have a single point to declare globals for your main type of classes.
In Java, because of dynamic class loaders and reflection, you have even much more options to choose from. But on the other hand, you have to support much more requirements as well: parallel requests, shared objects and states between worker threads, distributed app servers etc.
You can only answer the question what is right for you, if you know what you need in the first place. But actually, why do you write just another new framework anyway?
Singletons are frowned upon when Dependency Injection is viable (and I have yet to find a case where a Singleton was necessary).
More than likely you will have control of instantiation of controllers, so you can get away with the mentioned $controller->setApplication($application), but if necessary you can use static methods and variables (which are far less harmful to the orthogonality of an application than Singletons); namely Controller::setApplication(), and access the static variables through the instance methods.
eg:
// defining the Application within the controller -- more than likely in the bootstrap
$application = new Application();
Controller::setApplication($application);
// somewhere within the Controller class definition
public function setContentType($contentType)
{
self::$application->setContentType($contentType);
}
I have made of a habit of separating static and instance properties and methods (where necessary, and still grouping properties at the top of the class definition). I feel that this is less unwieldy than having Singletons, as the classes still remain quite compact.
How about refactoring?
Granted that was not one of your options, but you state the code is a largely coupled class. Why not take this time and effort to refactor it to more modular, testable components?
As far as I understand, the Application class of yours should be the dispatcher. If so, I would rather use the controller constructor to pass an instance of the Application, so the controller would know who's invoking it. At later point if you want to have a different Application instance depending on whether the code is invoked from within CLI, you can have an ApplicationInterface which the Application\Http and Application\Cli would implement and everything would be easy to maintain.
You could also implement some factory pattern to get a nice implementation of the DI. For example, check the createThroughReflection method here: https://github.com/troelskn/bucket/blob/master/lib/bucket.inc.php
I hope this makes sense.
Regards,
Nick
You could also use a ControllerFatory in which you would give to your Application or Router/Dispatcher
Sou you could call $controllerFactory->createController($name);
Your Application would have no idea how to create your controllers the Factory would. Since you ca inject your own ControllerFactory in to your DI container you can manage all dependencies you want depending on the controller.
class ControllerFactory {
public function __construct(EvenDispatcher $dispatcher,
Request $request,
ResponseFactory $responseFactory,
ModelFactory $modelFactory,
FormFactory $formFactory) {
...
}
public function createController($name = 'Default') {
switch ($name) {
case 'User':
return new UserController($dispatcher,
$request,
$responseFactory->createResponse('Html'),
$modelFactory->createModel('User'),
$formFactory->createForm('User'),...);
break;
case 'Ajax':
return new AjaxController($dispatcher,
$request,
$responseFactory->createResponse('Json'),
$modelFactory->createModel('User'));
break;
default:
return new DefaultController($dispatcher, $request, $responseFactory->createResponse('Html'));
}
}
}
So you just need to add this factory in your DI container and pass it to your Application.
Whenever you need a new controller you add it to the factory and if new dependencies are required you give them to the factory through your DI container.
class App {
public function __construct(Router $router,Request $request, ControllerFactory $cf, ... ) {
...
}
public function execute() {
$controllerName = $this->router->getMatchedController();
$actionName $this->router->getMatchedAction();
$controller = $cf->createController($controllerName);
if(is_callable($controller, $actionName)) {
$response = $controller->$action(request);
$response->send();
}
}
}
This is not production code, I haven't tested, but this is how you decouple your controllers from your application. Notice here though that there is one bad coupling here because my controller return's a response and I execute the response in the App. But like I said this is just a small example.
It is usually a good idea to pass factories for Models, Forms, and Controllers to their respective parents, because you will end up loading all your object Graph at bootstrap time wich is really bad and memory consuming.
I know this answer was already approved, but it's my 2 cents on the subject
There is a good article on the subject
http://miller.limethinking.co.uk/2011/07/07/dependency-injection-moving-from-basics-to-container/

Categories