Is it a good idea to have logic inside __constructor?
public class someClass
{
public function __construct()
{
//some logic here
}
So far I thought that it is fine; however, this reddit comment suggests the opposite.
As #Barry wrote, one of the reasons is related to unit-testing, but it's just a side-effect.
Let's take the worst case scenario: you have a "class", which only has a constructor (you probably have seen such examples). So ... why was it even written as a class? You cannot alter it's state, you cannot request it to perform any task and you have no way to check, that it did what you wanted. You could as well used a linear file and just included it. This is just bad.
Now for a more reasonable example: let's assume you have a class, which has some validation checks in the constructor and makes a new DB connection in it. And and then it also has some public methods for performing various tasks
The most obvious problem is the "makes a new DB connection" - there is no way to affect or prevent this operation from outside the class. And that new connection is going off to do who-knows-what (probably loading some configuration and trying to throw exceptions). It also constitutes a hidden dependency, for which you have no indication, without inspecting the class's code.
And there is a similar problem with code, that does validations and/or transformations of passed parameters. It constitutes hidden logic (and thus violating PoLA. It also makes your class harder to extend, because you probably will want to retain some of that validation functionality, while replacing other part. And you don't have that option. Because all of that code gets run whenever you crate a new instance.
Bottom line is this - logic in constructor is considered to be a "code smell". It's not a mortal sin (like using eval() on a global variable), but it's a sign of bad design.
No it isn't a good idea for automated testing. When testing you want to be able to "mock" objects that allow you to control the logic especially in terms of interfaces. So if you place logic in the constructor then it is very hard to test as you must use the real object.
here is a fantastic talk with much more detail on why not to put logic in constructor (google tech talk by Misko Hevery)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlfLCWKxHJ0
I think this question is little bit unclear because i don't think that __construct is bad place to logic, the question is what kind of logic you have here? Some kind of logic can be placed in constructor but another must not be present in constructor. For example Symfony Response - constructor contains logic, but this logic is necessary for this object, and this constructor doesn't make some implicit actions. This constructor doesn't print content to output or something else - so this is good example (as for me)...
Also it is important to understand what you object must to do, if it will be immutable object - constructor can have little bit another view...
Also it's important to follow SOLID and appropriate design pattern...
Related
In my example I'm using the PHP framework Yii2 but I think this applies to most OO languages.
I have an ActiveRecord base class which most of my business objects extend from e.g. Project.
At the moment if I want a Project instance I call
Project::findOne(['id' => $id]);
findOne is a static method of ActiveRecord (which is part of the Yii2 framework). So this is bad form because I can't easily mock/stub the return of this call when writing unit tests.
But what's the best way to get around this?
I could create a class CActiveRecord that inherits from ActiveRecord and wrap the static call in a non-static call and use that everywhere - but then I would have to instantiate a throw-away Project object in order to get the actual instance. What if the Project object needed some heavy config to be instantiated - I would be passing random nonsense into the constructor just to get an instance.
Summary:
Simply changing statics to non-statics seems wrong - shouldn't I also move the functions somewhere else? If so, where?
The issue with static calls is the hard coupling to a specific other piece of code. Just wrapping that in a "dynamic" call doesn't make this any better:
$c = new CProject;
$c->findOne(); // Calls Project::findOne()
That's pretty darn pointless. The issue is not the syntax of -> vs. ::, the issue is that this particular code references a specific other class and that you cannot easily exchange this class for something else. You're building rigid, hardcoded dependencies between your classes/objects, which makes it hard to take them apart, which makes your code hard to test, and which makes it harder to adapt code to different situations.
The alternative is dependency injection:
function foo(Project $project) {
$p = $project->findOne();
}
This function is not coupled to any one specific Project class, but to a class which simply offers an interface akin to Project. In fact, Project could even be simply an interface. Which specific class and method is getting called here then is decided somewhere completely different, like your dependency injection container; or simply the caller of this code.
This makes it a lot easier to take this code apart and put it back together in different ways, as necessary for the situation at hand. That's not to say it can't work and that you should never use static calls at all, but you really need to be aware of what cross-dependencies you're establishing with every hardcoded class name, and whether that may or may not cause a problem down the line. For even moderately complex and/or growing software projects, it will almost certainly cause friction in some form or another eventually.
See How Not To Kill Your Testability Using Statics for a longer in-depth article.
In my example I'm using the PHP framework Yii2 but I think this applies to most OO languages.
I have an ActiveRecord base class which most of my business objects extend from e.g. Project.
At the moment if I want a Project instance I call
Project::findOne(['id' => $id]);
findOne is a static method of ActiveRecord (which is part of the Yii2 framework). So this is bad form because I can't easily mock/stub the return of this call when writing unit tests.
But what's the best way to get around this?
I could create a class CActiveRecord that inherits from ActiveRecord and wrap the static call in a non-static call and use that everywhere - but then I would have to instantiate a throw-away Project object in order to get the actual instance. What if the Project object needed some heavy config to be instantiated - I would be passing random nonsense into the constructor just to get an instance.
Summary:
Simply changing statics to non-statics seems wrong - shouldn't I also move the functions somewhere else? If so, where?
The issue with static calls is the hard coupling to a specific other piece of code. Just wrapping that in a "dynamic" call doesn't make this any better:
$c = new CProject;
$c->findOne(); // Calls Project::findOne()
That's pretty darn pointless. The issue is not the syntax of -> vs. ::, the issue is that this particular code references a specific other class and that you cannot easily exchange this class for something else. You're building rigid, hardcoded dependencies between your classes/objects, which makes it hard to take them apart, which makes your code hard to test, and which makes it harder to adapt code to different situations.
The alternative is dependency injection:
function foo(Project $project) {
$p = $project->findOne();
}
This function is not coupled to any one specific Project class, but to a class which simply offers an interface akin to Project. In fact, Project could even be simply an interface. Which specific class and method is getting called here then is decided somewhere completely different, like your dependency injection container; or simply the caller of this code.
This makes it a lot easier to take this code apart and put it back together in different ways, as necessary for the situation at hand. That's not to say it can't work and that you should never use static calls at all, but you really need to be aware of what cross-dependencies you're establishing with every hardcoded class name, and whether that may or may not cause a problem down the line. For even moderately complex and/or growing software projects, it will almost certainly cause friction in some form or another eventually.
See How Not To Kill Your Testability Using Statics for a longer in-depth article.
In a theoretical database access class, I found that there are quite a few helper functions that I use in the class, which have nothing to do the class's instance (and others, that could be manipulated to be unrelated to the class's instance using dependency injection).
For example, I have a function that gets a string between two other strings in a variable. I've been thinking of moving that to a String_Helper class, or something of the sort. This function has already been made static.
Also, I have a function that queries a database, query($sql). The connection details are provided by the instance, but I've been considering making it static, and using query($sql, $connection). Developers would then be able to call it statically and not need to instantiate the database class at all.
For me, the questions are:
Is it worth it to do something like this? Functions like the query function make me wonder if this is not just me trying to make everything as static as possible, without any real need to. Under what circumstances would you consider this useful?
I know static functions are harder to test, but if I make sure that their code is completely dependency free (or uses dependency injection where necessary), then they're just as easy to test as everything else, surely?
It isn't a concern at the moment, but if, in the future, I decided to extend the classes with the static functions, it would be impossible for me to make the current code use my extended functions. I've thought of Singletons, but the same problem arises: the code would be calling Singleton_Class::getInstance(), and not My_Extended_Singleton_Class::getInstance(). Dependency Injection seems to be the only way to solve this issue, but it might lead to a clunkier API, as every dependency has to be given to an object on __construct().
I have a container class, which holds certain pieces of information statically so that they can be accessed anywhere in the script (global scope). If I can't use static functions or singletons, a class that contained instances of different variables would be great. One could use for example Container::$objects['MyClass'] = $MyClass_object;, and then the rest of the code could just access Container::$objects['MyClass']. If I extended the MyClass class, I could use Container::$objects['MyClass'] = $MyExtendedClass_object;, and the code that used Container::$objects['MyClass'] would use MyExtendedClass, rather than MyClass. This is by far the best way to do it, in my opinion, but I'd like to know what you think about it.
Ok, let me answer these one by one...
1. Is it worth doing something like this
Yes and no. Splitting out the helper functions into their own classes is a good idea. It keeps the "scope" of each of the classes rigidly defined, and you don't get creap. However, don't make a method static just because you can. The query method is there to make your life easier by managing the connection, so why would you want to lose that benefit?
2. They are harder to test
They are not harder to test. Static methods that depend on state are harder to test (that access static member variables or global variables). But static methods in general are just as easy to test as instance methods (in fact, they can be easier since you don't need to worry about instantiation).
3. Extending the classes
This is a valid concern. If you put String_Helper::foo() in the class itself, you'll run into issues. But an option would be to set the name of the string helper as a class variable. So you could then do {$this->stringHelper}::foo() (note, PHP 5.3 only). That way to override the class, all you need to do is change the string helper class in that instance. The Lithium framework does this a lot...
4. Global Registry
I would stay away from this. You're basically just making every class a singleton without enforcing it. Testing will be a nightmare since you're now dependent on global scope. Instead, I'd create a registry object and pass it to classes via the constructor (Dependency Injection). You still accomplish the same thing since you have a store for the objects/classes, but you're no longer dependent on a global scope. This makes testing much easier.
In general
When you're looking at doing things like this, I like to stop when I hit questions like this. Stop and sit down and think *What actual problem am I trying to solve?". Enumerate the problem explicitly. Then pull our your supposed solutions and see if they actually solve them. If they do, then think about the future and if those solutions are really maintainable in the long run (Both from a bug fix standpoint, and with respect to feature additions). Only if you're happy with both of those answers should you even consider doing it. Oh, and also remember to keep it simple. Programming is not about making the most complex, most clever or most amazing solution. It's about making the simplest solution that solves the problem...
I hope that helps...
Good Luck!
I'm obviously brand new to these concepts. I just don't understand why you would limit access to properties or methods. It seems that you would just write the code according to intended results. Why would you create a private method instead of simply not calling that method? Is it for iterative object creation (if I'm stating that correctly), a multiple developer situation (don't mess up other people's work), or just so you don't mess up your own work accidentally?
Your last two points are quite accurate - you don't need multiple developers to have your stuff messed with. If you work on a project long enough, you'll realize you've forgotten much of what you did at the beginning.
One of the most important reasons for hiding something is so that you can safely change it later. If a field is public, and several months later you want to change it so that every time the field changes, something else happens, you're in trouble. Because it was public, there's no way to know or remember how many other places accessed that field directly. If it's private, you have a guarantee that it isn't being touched outside of this class. You likely have a public method wrapped around it, and you can easily change the behavior of that method.
In general, more you things make public, the more you have to worry about compatibility with other code.
We create private methods so that consumers of our classes don't have to care about implementation details - they can focus on the few nifty things our classes provide for them.
Moreover, we're obligated to consider every possible use of public methods. By making methods private, we reduce the number of features a class has to support, and we have more freedom to change them.
Say you have a Queue class - every time a caller adds an item to the queue, it may be necessary to to increase the queue's capacity. Because of the underlying implementation, setting the capacity isn't trivial, so you break it out into a separate function to improve the readability of your Enqueue function. Since callers don't care about a queue's capacity (you're handling it for them), you can make the method private: callers don't get distracted by superfluous methods, you don't have to worry that callers will do ridiculous things to the capacity, and you can change the implementation any time you like without breaking code that uses your class (as long as it still sets the capacity within the limited use cases defined by your class).
It all comes down to encapsulation. This means hiding the insides of the class and just caring about what it does. If you want to have a credit card processing class, you don't really care 'how' it processes the credit card. You just want to be able to go: $creditCardProcessor->charge(10.99, $creditCardNumber); and expect it to work.
By making some methods public and others private or protected, we leave an entry way for others so they know where it is safe to call code from. The public methods and variables are called an 'interface'.
For any class, you have an implementation. This is how the class carries out its duty. If it is a smoothie making class, how the class adds the ingredients, what ingredients it adds, etc are all part of the implementation. The outside code shouldn't know and/or care about the implementation.
The other side of the class it its interface. The interface is the public methods that the developer of the class intended to be called by outside code. This means that you should be able to call any public method and it will work properly.
There are several reasons for using encapsulation, one of the strongest is: Imagine using a large, complicated library written by someone else. If every object was unprotected you could unknowingly be accessing or changing values that the developer never intended to be manipulated in that way.
Hiding data makes the program easier to conceptualize and easier to implement.
It's all about encapsulation. Methods are private that do the inner grunt work while exposing graceful functions that make things easy. E.g. you might have an $product->insert() function that utilizes 4 inner functions to validate a singleton db object, make the query safe, etc - those are inner functions that don't need to be exposed and if called, might mess up other structures or flows you, the developer, have put in place.
a multiple developer situation (don't
mess up other people's work), or just
so you don't mess up your own work
accidentally?
Mainly these two things. Making a method public says "this is how the class is supposed to be used by its clients", making it private says "this is an implementation detail that may change without warning and which clients should not care about" AND forces clients to follow that advice.
A class with a few, well documented public methods is much easier to use by someone who's not familiar with it (which may well be its original author, looking at it for the first time in 6 months) than one where everything is public, including all the little implementation details that you don't care about.
It makes collaboration easier, you tell the users of your classes what parts should not change so often and you can guarantee that your object will be in a meaningful state if they use only public methods.
It does not need to be so strict as distinguishing between private/public/whatever (I mean enforced by the language). For example, in Python, this is accomplished by a naming convention. You know you shouldn't mess with anything marked as not public.
For example - private/protected method may be part of some class which is called in another (public) method. If that part is called in more public methods, it makes sense. And yet you don't want these methods to be called anywhere else.
It's quite the same with class properties. Yes, you can write all-public classes, but whats the fun in that?
I started off by drafting a question: "What is the best way to perform unit testing on a constructor (e.g., __construct() in PHP5)", but when reading through the related questions, I saw several comments that seemed to suggest that setting member variables or performing any complicated operations in the constructor are no-nos.
The constructor for the class in question here takes a param, performs some operations on it (making sure it passes a sniff test, and transforming it if necessary), and then stashes it away in a member variable.
I thought the benefits of doing it this way were:
1) that client code would always be
certain to have a value for this
member variable whenever an object
of this class is instantiated, and
2) it saves a step in client code
(one of which could conceivably be
missed), e.g.,
$Thing = new Thing;
$Thing->initialize($var);
when we could just do this
$Thing = new Thing($var);
and be done with it.
Is this a no-no? If so why?
My rule of thumb is that an object should be ready for use after the constructor has finished. But there are often a number of options that can be tweaked afterwards.
My list of do's and donts:
Constructors should set up basic options for the object.
They should maybe create instances of helper objects.
They should not aqquire resources(files, sockets, ...), unless the object clearly is a wrapper around some resource.
Of course, no rules without exceptions. The important thing is that you think about your design and your choises. Make object usage natural - and that includes error reporting.
This comes up quite a lot in C++ discussions, and the general conclusion I've come to there has been this:
If an object does not acquire any external resources, members must be initialized in the constructor. This involves doing all work in the constructor.
(x, y) coordinate (or really any other structure that's just a glorified tuple)
US state abbreviation lookup table
If an object acquires resources that it can control, they may be allocated in the constructor:
open file descriptor
allocated memory
handle/pointer into an external library
If the object acquires resources that it can't entirely control, they must be allocated outside of the constructor:
TCP connection
DB connection
weak reference
There are always exceptions, but this covers most cases.
Constructors are for initializing the object, so
$Thing = new Thing($var);
is perfectly acceptable.
The job of a constructor is to establish an instance's invariants.
Anything that doesn't contribute to that is best kept out of the constructor.
To improve the testability of a class it is generally a good thing to keep it's constructor as simple as possible and to have it ask only for things it absolutely needs. There's an excellent presentation available on YouTube as part of Google's "Clean Code Talks" series explaining this in detail.
You should definitely avoid making the client have to call
$thing->initialize($var)
That sort of stuff absolutely belongs in the constructor. It's just unfriendly to the client programmer to make them call this. There is a (slightly controversial) school of thought that says you should write classes so that objects are never in an invalid state -- and 'uninitialized' is an invalid state.
However for testability and performance reasons, sometimes it's good to defer certain initializations until later in the object's life. In cases like these, lazy evaluation is the solution.
Apologies for putting Java syntax in a Python answer but:
// Constructor
public MyObject(MyType initVar) {
this.initVar = initVar;
}
private void lazyInitialize() {
if(initialized) {
return
}
// initialization code goes here, uses initVar
}
public SomeType doSomething(SomeOtherType x) {
lazyInitialize();
// doing something code goes here
}
You can segment your lazy initialization so that only the parts that need it get initialized. It's common, for example, to do this in getters, just for what affects the value that's being got.
Depends on what type of system you're trying to architect, but in general I believe constructors are best used for only initializing the "state" of the object, but not perform any state transitions themselves. Best to just have it set the defaults.
I then write a "handle" method into my objects for handling things like user input, database calls, exceptions, collation, whatever. The idea is that this will handle whatever state the object finds itself in based on external forces (user input, time, etc.) Basically, all the things that may change the state of the object and require additional action are discovered and represented in the object.
Finally, I put a render method into the class to show the user something meaningful. This only represents the state of the object to the user (whatever that may be.)
__construct($arguments)
handle()
render(Exception $ex = null)
The __construct magic method is fine to use. The reason you see initialize in a lot of frameworks and applications is because that object is being programmed to an interface or it is trying to enact a singleton/getInstance pattern.
These objects are generally pulled into context or a controller and then have the common interface functionality called on them by other higher level objects.
If $var is absolutely necessary for $Thing to work, then it is a DO
You should not put things in a constructor that is only supposed to run once when the class is created.
To explain.
If i had a database class. Where the constructor is the connection to the database
So
$db = new dbclass;
And now i am connected to the database.
Then we have a class that uses some methods within the database class.
class users extends dbclass
{
// some methods
}
$users = new users
// by doing this, we have called the dbclass's constructor again