PHP Replacing static methods in Entities, best practices - php

<?php
class Entity {
/**
* #var array|stdClass|Collection|string
**/
private $mixed;
public function getMixedAsPhpArray(array $filter) {
return EntityHelper::toPhpArray($this->mixed, $filter);
}
}
Given the above class, how would you remove the static call to EntityHelper::toPhpArray assuming $mixed could by any of the types in the PHPDoc Block? (This is just a simplified example of an issue I'm facing where I have a function to take "dirty in and clean out") (I cannot add it to the Entity as many Entities need this function and cannot extend from an Abstrart Entity with this method as they already extend various others).
I'm using Symfony and thought of DI in the helper but replacing all new Entity with a call to the service container would be a bad (and slow) idea. Another idea would be to return the dirty output and use a service to clean and filter it but I also think that's a bad idea as it takes all the data from the Entity out into the Application then into the Service when I think it should happen in one go and remove mistakes (and maybe memory usage...).

The best solution will depend on your application, but one method you might use is to put your helper code in a trait:
<?php
trait ArrayCleaner {
public function toPhpArray($dataToFilter, $filterArray) {
// ... your code here
}
}
class Entity {
use ArrayCleaner;
/**
* #var array|stdClass|Collection|string
**/
private $mixed;
public function getMixedAsPhpArray(array $filter) {
return $this->toPhpArray($this->mixed, $filter);
}
}
http://php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.traits.php

Well, you could do this with a trait.
trait EntityHelperTrait
{
private function toPhpArray($value, $filter) {
// body of method
}
}
class Entity
{
use EntityHelperTrait;
/**
* #var array|stdClass|Collection|string
**/
private $mixed;
public function getMixedAsPhpArray(array $filter) {
return $this->toPhpArray($this->mixed, $filter);
}
}
But based on your (admittedly simplified) example, you're mixing responsibilities. The job of type conversion, which is what this essentially is, should belong somewhere else, not baked into the Entity class itself.
I think it's totally fine to let the Entity return the "dirty" output for another component to filter/clean/whatever.

Related

Circular reference detected for service

I have a simple class which looks like this:
<?php
namespace App\Algorithm;
use App\Dao\MatchDao;
use App\Service\MatchService;
class Calculator {
private $users;
private $matchDao;
function __construct(MatchService $matchService, MatchDao $matchDao) {
$this->users = $matchService->users;
$this->matchDao = $matchDao;
}
public function hourlyRate() {
$query = $this->matchDao->getSingleColumn('Payment', 'hourly_rate', 32);
var_dump($query);
}
}
But I get the following error message:
Circular reference detected for service "App\Algorithm\Calculator",
path: "App\Algorithm\Calculator -> App\Service\MatchService ->
App\Algorithm\Calculator".
MatchService.php
<?php
namespace App\Service;
use App\Algorithm\Calculator;
use App\Algorithm\Collection;
class MatchService {
public $users;
private $collection;
private $calculator;
function __construct(Collection $collection, Calculator $calculator) {
$this->collection = $collection;
$this->calculator = $calculator;
}
public function getMatch($data) {
$this->users = $this->collection->getAllUsers($data);
$this->calculator->hourlyRate();
return 1;
}
}
The problem would be MatchService but what exactly am I doing wrong?
As several people have pointed out, the circular dependency comes from that fact that you are trying to inject the Calculator into MatchService and at the same time, injecting MatchService into the Calculator. No way to create one before creating the other.
Looking a bit more deeply, it appears that Calculator is using the MatchService to get list of users. As a second problem, Calculator is trying to get the users before MatchService has generated them.
Here is one possible refactoring:
class Calculator
{
private $matchDao;
public function __construct(MatchDao $matchDao)
{
$this->matchDao = $matchDao;
}
public function getHourlyRate($users) // Added argument
{
$query = $this->matchDao->getSingleColumn('Payment', 'hourly_rate', 32);
}
}
class MatchService
{
private $collection;
private $calculator;
public function __construct(Collection $collection, Calculator $calculator)
{
$this->calculator = $calculator;
$this->collection = $collection;
}
public function getMatch($data)
{
$users = $this->collection->getAllUsers($data);
$this->calculator->getHourlyRate($users);
}
}
Removing MatchService from the Calculator's constructor solves the circular dependency problem. Passing $users to getHourlyRate solves the problem of trying to get users before they are available.
This is course is just one possible solution. It's not clear from your posted code if Calculator really needs $users or not.
This usually occurs when classes are dependency injecting each other, hence the circular reference.
Given you above example, your class MatchService injects Collection and Calculator. One of these (would assume calculator as collection is probably a doctrine class) dependency injects your MatchService.
Here is how I imagine your classes are supt:
class MatchService
{
public $users;
private $collection;
private $calculator;
public function __construct(Collection $collection, Calculator $calculator) {
$this->collection = $collection;
$this->calculator = $calculator;
}
}
class Calculator
{
private $matchService;
public function __construct(MatchService $matchService)
{
$this->matchService = $matchService;
}
}
You have a couple of options:
More services with fewer dependencies
Using statics
It's hard for us to solve for you as it's dependent on how you architect your application.
It is kind of obvious that you are injecting service A into Service B, and, also, Service B into Service A .
Seems kind of not logical to do so, but sometimes is needed.
In my case, I have two services :
_MySesion -> Which prototypes Symfony Session
_MyClient -> Responsible for identify the client and get its DB Credentials
I use the MySession to store those credentials, as so, it will be available to the whole system, but, to get those credentials using MyClient, I need some info stored into MySession .... See, two services that need each other to work ...
I start to see this same
Circular reference detected for service
just after upgrade to Symfony 5. And, sfy5 itself suggested the solution :
composer require symfony/proxy-manager-bridge
Remember that the services may be set with
lazy : true
More info on Symfony Docs

Is it good practice to create a factory implementation which uses other factories to build the final concrete object?

In an application I'm building there's a CLI entry point class:
class CLIEntryPoint {
protected $factory;
public function __construct(ApplicationObjectFactoryInterface $factory) {
$this->factory = $factory;
}
public function run(...$args) {
$choice = $args[1];
$appObject = $this->factory->makeApplicationObject($choice);
$appObject->doApplicationRelatedStuff();
}
}
This entry point is created using Dependency Injection in my "front controller" script and it receives an ApplicationObjectFactoryInterface implementation (actually the current implementation of ApplicationObjectFactoryInterface is injected by the DI container, which in turn reads it from its configuration file, but that's not the point).
The current implementation of ApplicationObjectFactoryInterface also uses DI and depends on other factories which help it building the resulting application object:
class CurrentImplementationOfApplicationObjectFactory implements ApplicationObjectFactoryInterface {
protected $someComponentFactory;
protected $anotherComponentFactory;
public function __construct(SomeComponentFactoryInterface $someComponentFactory, AnotherComponentFactoryInterface $anotherComponentFactory) {
$this->someComponentFactory = $someComponentFactory;
$this->anotherComponentFactory = $anotherComponentFactory;
}
/**
* Interface's method
*
* #return ApplicationObjectInterface
*/
public function makeApplicationObject($choice) {
$component = $this->someComponentFactory->makeSomeComponent();
$anotherComponent = $this->anotherComponent->makeAnotherComponent();
switch ($choice) {
case 1:
return new CurrentImplementationOfApplicationObject1($component, $anotherComponent);
case 2:
return new CurrentImplementationOfApplicationObject2($component, $anotherComponent);
default:
return new DefaultImplementationOfApplicationObject($component, $anotherComponent);
}
}
}
Here CurrentImplementationOfApplicationObject1, CurrentImplementationOfApplicationObject2 and DefaultImplementationOfApplicationObject all implement the ApplicationObjectInterface interface and therefore they all have the doApplicationRelatedStuff method.
I would like to know whether it's good practice or not to write code like I did and if not how can I improve it.
Basically here I am creating a component which depends on other components in order to function properly using a factory which in turn needs inner factories to build the component which implements the ApplicationObjectInterface interface.
Is it considered good practice?
Thanks for the attention, as always!
EDIT: I looked at the article of Steven and tried to refactor CLIEntryPoint. The only problem now seems to be how to pass the $choice parameter to the factory which now is inside of the proxy when the run() method is called. Is this code structure better than the one I posted above? Of course, SomeComponentFactoryInterface and AnotherComponentFactoryInterface should follow the same behaviour (the factory that uses them should not use them directly, but through two proxies which implement, in order, SomeComponentInterface and AnotherComponentInterface). I hope I get it right, anyway, here is the code:
class CLIEntryPoint {
protected $applicationObject;
public function __construct(ApplicationObjectInterface $applicationObject) {
$this->applicationObject = $applicationObject;
}
public function run(...$args) {
$choice = $args[1]; // How do I deal with different choices when I am using a Proxy? I should have different application objects depending on input.
$this->applicationObject->doApplicationRelatedStuff();
}
}
interface ApplicationObjectInterface {
public function doApplicationRelatedStuff();
}
class ApplicationObjectProxy implements ApplicationObjectInterface {
protected $applicationObjectFactory;
protected $applicationObjectImplementation = NULL;
public function __construct(ApplicationObjectFactoryInterface $factory) {
$this->applicationObjectFactory = $factory;
}
public function __call($method, $args) {
// Calling interface's
$implementation = $this->getImplementation();
$methodOfInterfaceToCall = preg_replace('/Proxy$/', '', $method);
return $implementation->{$methodOfInterfaceToCall}(...$args);
}
/**
* Laxy loading method.
*/
protected function getImplementation() {
if (is_null($this->applicationObjectImplementation)) {
$this->applicationObjectImplementation = $this->applicationObjectFactory->makeApplicationObject(); // Choice should go here somehow...
}
return $this->applicationObjectImplementation;
}
public function doApplicationRelatedStuff() {
// This will call the PHP's magic `__call` method, which in turn will forward the call to the application object's
// implementation returned by the factory.
return $this->doApplicationRelatedStuffProxy();
}
}
Actually yes, this is a pattern called the Abstract Factory Pattern. So an example that I used to present it in front of my class during my undergrad:
So if you are building a video game first person shooter, you might want to create three concrete factories like:
FlyingMonsterFactory
SwimmingMonsterFactory
WalkingMonsterFactory.
All these factories would implement an abstract MonsterFactory.
With this, you can have your video game create a level in which you want waves of the same type of monsters, so you can have a randomWaveMonsterGenerator method return a MonsterFactory which might have returned a concrete SwimmingMonsterFactory. So then you will have a wave of SwimmingMonster(s) generated by the SwimmingMonsterFactory.
So answer your description more directly, looking at your code above, you asked the question on choice for Dependency Injection. With Dependency Injection, I believe for this type of pattern, you will have to inject every concrete class before your code even attempts to get the implementation class.
So for example:
Your code above says the run method gives an argument called
choice.
With this choice, you will have to use it as a parameter into a getImplementation method.
All the concrete objects that the getImplementation method that rely upon Dependency
Injection have to be created BEFORE you call the getImplementation method.
But since you don't know which implementation class will be called, I believe you have to inject ALL the implementation classes before hand.
Then you can use the choice variable as a parameter to get the correct implemented factory class.
Hope this helps!

PhpStorm not finding methods in objects created by late static binding by parent abstract class

In my PHP application I have a base class for all database objects, which is further extended by specific model classes. It goes on like this (simplified):
abstract class Model extends Collection {
(...)
function __construct(string $primary_key, string $value) {
$data = MysqlDB::instance() -> select(static::TABLE, implode(',', static::COLUMNS), "$primary_key=\"$value\"");
if (count($data) != 1)
throw new ModelException('Select condition uncertain');
parent::__construct($data[0]);
}
public static function getById(string $id) : ?Model {
try {
return new static('id', $id);
} catch (ModelException $e) {
return NULL;
}
}
(...)
}
The point is, I use the getById function on child classes to obtain the needed objects. However, since the return type of getById method is Model, PhpStorm can't figure out what methods the objects has and highlights the ones I use as an error. Consequently, no type-hinting available.
For instance, assuming that final class User extends Model and that class User has method sendNotification, this kind of code:
User::getById($id) -> sendNotification($param1, $param2, ...)
has sendNotification yellowed out as though it did not exist.
I know this isn't that much of an issue, but it's really irritating in terms of that I get distracted by constant redundant warnings and that I can't use type-hinting in such a usage case.
Try with actual PHPDoc for your getById() where you specify dynamic type (e.g. #return static or #return $this).
That's the most common way of providing such "this class and its' children" typehint.
Another possible option is kind of the same .. but using PHP 7.1 functionality (so no PHPDoc blocks).
Try using self as return type instead of Model. I mean here:
public static function getById(string $id) : ?Model {
use this instead:
public static function getById(string $id) : ?self {
But for this one you should use PhpStorm 2017.2 EAP build as 2017.1.x has issues with that (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/44806801/783119 as an example).
There are three ways to achieve this, none of them has anything to do with PHPStorm.
First overwrite the method in every child with the proper return type:
/**
* #return User
*/
public static function getById(string $id) : ?Model { return parent::getById($id); }
Second add all possible children to the return tag of the abstract class.
/**
* #return Model|User|...
*/
public static function getById(string $id) : ?Model { /* ... */ }
Third add a type hint just in place:
/** #var User $user */
$user = User::getById($id);
$user->sendNotification($param1, $param2, ...);
These are not nice and hard to maintain. But there is no "setting" in PHPStorm for that.

Testing command handler with phpspec

Lately I'm giving a try to phpspec. It works great, but I have got a problem with testing command handlers. For example in PHPUnit I test it that way:
/**
* #test
*/
public function it_should_change_an_email()
{
$this->repository->add($this->employee);
$this->handler->changeEmail(
new ChangeEmailCommand(
$this->employee->username()->username(),
'new#email.com'
)
);
Asserts::assertEquals(new Email('new#email.com'), $this->employee->email());
}
and setup:
protected function setUp()
{
$this->repository = new InMemoryEmployeeRepository();
$this->createEmployee();
$this->handler = new EmployeeCommandHandler($this->repository);
}
The main point is that this test make assertions on the Employee object to check if CommandHandler is working good. But in phpspec I can't make assertion on different object than the specifying one, in this case I can only make assertion on my CommandHandler. So how I can test a command handler in phpspec?
EDIT
Maybe spies are the way to go:
class EmployeeCommandHandlerSpec extends ObjectBehavior
{
const USERNAME = 'johnny';
/** #var EmployeeRepository */
private $employeeRepository;
public function let(EmployeeRepository $employeeRepository)
{
$this->employeeRepository = $employeeRepository;
$this->beConstructedWith($employeeRepository);
}
public function it_changes_the_employee_email(Employee $employee)
{
$this->givenEmployeeExists($employee);
$this->changeEmail(
new ChangeEmailCommand(self::USERNAME, 'new#email.com')
);
$employee->changeEmail(new Email('new#email.com'))->shouldHaveBeenCalled();
}
private function givenEmployeeExists(Employee $employee)
{
$this->employeeRepository->employeeWithUsername(new EmployeeUsername(self::USERNAME))
->shouldBeCalled()
->willReturn($employee);
}
}
Employee class I've already speced. So, maybe, in command handler it'll be enough to just check if the method of the Employee has been called. What do you think about it? Am I going in good direction?
Messaging
Indeed, you shouldn't verify the state, but expect certain interactions between objects. That's what OOP is about afterall - messaging.
The way you've done it in PHPUnit is state verification. It forces you to expose the state as you need to provide a "getter", which is not always desired. What you're interested in is that Employee's email was updated:
$employee->updateEmail(new Email('new#email.com'))->shouldBeCalled();
The same can be achieved with spies if you prefer:
$employee->updateEmail(new Email('new#email.com'))->shouldHaveBeenCalled();
Command/Query Separation
We usually only need to state our expectations against methods that have side effects (command methods from Command/Query separation). We mock them.
Query methods do not need to be mocked, but stubbed. You don't really expect that EmployeeRepository::employeeWithUsername() should be called. Doing so we're making assumptions about implementation which in turn will make refactoring harder. All you need is stubbing it, so if a method is called it returns a result:
$employeeRepository->employeeWithUsername(new EmployeeUsername(self::USERNAME))
->willReturn($employee);
Full example
class EmployeeCommandHandlerSpec extends ObjectBehavior
{
const USERNAME = 'johnny';
public function let(EmployeeRepository $employeeRepository)
{
$this->beConstructedWith($employeeRepository);
}
public function it_changes_the_employee_email(
EmployeeRepository $employees, Employee $employee
) {
$this->givenEmployeeExists($employees, $employee);
$this->changeEmail(
new ChangeEmailCommand(self::USERNAME, 'new#email.com')
);
$employee->changeEmail(new Email('new#email.com'))->shouldHaveBeenCalled();
}
private function givenEmployeeExists(
EmployeeRepository $employees, Employee $employee
) {
$employees->employeeWithUsername(new EmployeeUsername(self::USERNAME))
->willReturn($employee);
}
}

phpspec testing file contents / file operations

I'm curious about the best way of speccing classes that handle file operations.
Assuming I have a fictional class with a method duplicate whose job is to duplicate the contents of a file.
<?php
class FileOperator
{
public function duplicate($filename)
{
$content = file_get_contents($filename);
file_put_contents($filename, $content.$content);
}
}
I know that I can use something like vfsStream to assert the change without touching the actual filesystem (at least with assertions in PHPUnit).
How could I assert that in a spec? Or would it be approached differently?
Also, I get that I might want to extract that functionality into another class and use a Spy to assert that the FileOperator calls its dependency correctly, but then I'd still have to spec that adapter class, and my question remains.
Thanks.
This is more likely a functional test rather than an unit test, so it's hard to use phpspec in this case.
If you insist, I see two options.
If you happen to need a method to fetch the file contents too, you could write your spec this way:
use org\bovigo\vfs\vfsStream;
use org\bovigo\vfs\vfsStreamDirectory;
use PhpSpec\ObjectBehavior;
class FileOperatorSpec extends ObjectBehavior
{
/**
* #var vfsStreamDirectory
*/
private $workDir;
function let()
{
$this->workDir = vfsStream::setup('workDir');
}
function it_duplicates_a_content_in_a_file()
{
$this->createFile('foo', 'bar');
$this->duplicate('vfs://workDir/foo');
$this->read('vfs://workDir/foo')->shouldReturn('barbar');
}
private function createFile($path, $content)
{
$file = vfsStream::newFile($path);
$file->setContent($content);
$this->workDir->addChild($file);
}
}
Alternatively, you could use the expect helper:
use org\bovigo\vfs\vfsStream;
use org\bovigo\vfs\vfsStreamDirectory;
use PhpSpec\ObjectBehavior;
class FileOperatorSpec extends ObjectBehavior
{
/**
* #var vfsStreamDirectory
*/
private $workDir;
function let()
{
$this->workDir = vfsStream::setup('workDir');
}
function it_duplicates_a_content_in_a_file()
{
$this->createFile('foo', 'bar');
$this->duplicate('vfs://workDir/foo');
expect(file_get_contents('vfs://workDir/foo'))->toBe('barbar');
}
private function createFile($path, $content)
{
$file = vfsStream::newFile($path);
$file->setContent($content);
$this->workDir->addChild($file);
}
}

Categories