I can't find how to make something like ::getInstance() like in other php frameworks to get Application (singleton) instance in symfony2
I found only sfContext::getInstance() buy it doesn't work and looks like its method from symfony1
add more info.
I have some class - abstract class Post { }. I want to get some application config, environment variables inside this class. i don't want to put all this stuff to constructor method, instead i want to call application instance and get all i want
If you take a look at web/app.php you will see that your application instance is just a global variable called kernel
$kernel = $GLOBALS['kernel'];
die(get_class($kernel));
However, the reason #san40 told you to read the documents is that you probably never actually need it for anything. SF2 is very different than SF1. So if you explained why your wanted the instance then someone might be able to suggest alternative approaches.
===================================
Looking at web/console shows that same principle for console commands except the instance is called application.
die(get_class($GLOBALS['application']))
However, using the application instance to pull environment variables and such is not recommended. If nothing else, it makes your objects completely dependent in the instance. Dependency injection is what you want. Read through the stuff in the s2 documentation.
I'll admit, I haven't unit tested much... but I'd like to. With that being said, I have a very complex registration process that I'd like to optimize for easier unit testing. I'm looking for a way to structure my classes so that I can test them more easily in the future. All of this logic is contained within an MVC framework, so you can assume the controller is the root where everything gets instantiated from.
To simplify, what I'm essentially asking is how to setup a system where you can manage any number of third party modules with CRUD updates. These third party modules are all RESTful API driven and response data is stored in local copies. Something like the deletion of a user account would need to trigger the deletion of all associated modules (which I refer to as providers). These providers may have a dependency on another provider, so the order of deletions/creations is important. I'm interested in which design patterns I should specifically be using to support my application.
Registration spans several classes and stores data in several db tables. Here's the order of the different providers and methods (they aren't statics, just written that way for brevity):
Provider::create('external::create-user') initiates registration at a particular step of a particular provider. The double colon syntax in the first param indicates the class should trigger creation on providerClass::providerMethod. I had made a general assumption that Provider would be an interface with the methods create(), update(), delete() that all other providers would implement it. How this gets instantiated is likely something you need to help me with.
$user = Provider_External::createUser() creates a user on an external API, returns success, and user gets stored in my database.
$customer = Provider_Gapps_Customer::create($user) creates a customer on a third party API, returns success, and stores locally.
$subscription = Provider_Gapps_Subscription::create($customer) creates a subscription associated to the previously created customer on the third party API, returns success, and stores locally.
Provider_Gapps_Verification::get($customer, $subscription) retrieves a row from an external API. This information gets stored locally. Another call is made which I'm skipping to keep things concise.
Provider_Gapps_Verification::verify($customer, $subscription) performs an external API verification process. The result of which gets stored locally.
This is a really dumbed down sample as the actual code relies upon at least 6 external API calls and over 10 local database rows created during registration. It doesn't make sense to use dependency injection at the constructor level because I might need to instantiate 6 classes in the controller without knowing if I even need them all. What I'm looking to accomplish would be something like Provider::create('external') where I simply specify the starting step to kick off registration.
The Crux of the Problem
So as you can see, this is just one sample of a registration process. I'm building a system where I could have several hundred service providers (external API modules) that I need to sign up for, update, delete, etc. Each of these providers gets related back to a user account.
I would like to build this system in a manner where I can specify an order of operations (steps) when triggering the creation of a new provider. Put another way, allow me to specify which provider/method combination gets triggered next in the chain of events since creation can span so many steps. Currently, I have this chain of events occurring via the subject/observer pattern. I'm looking to potentially move this code to a database table, provider_steps, where I list each step as well as it's following success_step and failure_step (for rollbacks and deletes). The table would look as follows:
# the id of the parent provider row
provider_id int(11) unsigned primary key,
# the short, slug name of the step for using in codebase
step_name varchar(60),
# the name of the method correlating to the step
method_name varchar(120),
# the steps that get triggered on success of this step
# can be comma delimited; multiple steps could be triggered in parallel
triggers_success varchar(255),
# the steps that get triggered on failure of this step
# can be comma delimited; multiple steps could be triggered in parallel
triggers_failure varchar(255),
created_at datetime,
updated_at datetime,
index ('provider_id', 'step_name')
There's so many decisions to make here... I know I should favor composition over inheritance and create some interfaces. I also know I'm likely going to need factories. Lastly, I have a lot of domain model shit going on here... so I likely need business domain classes. I'm just not sure how to mesh them all together without creating an utter mess in my pursuit of the holy grail.
Also, where would be the best place for the db queries to take place?
I have a model for each database table already, but I'm interested in knowing where and how to instantiate the particular model methods.
Things I've Been Reading...
Design Patterns
The Strategy Pattern
Composition over Inheritance
The Factory method pattern
The Abstract factory pattern
The Builder pattern
The Chain-of-responsibility pattern
You're already working with the pub/sub pattern, which seems appropriate. Given nothing but your comments above, I'd be considering an ordered list as a priority mechanism.
But it still doesn't smell right that each subscriber is concerned with the order of operations of its dependents for triggering success/failure. Dependencies usually seem like they belong in a tree, not a list. If you stored them in a tree (using the composite pattern) then the built-in recursion would be able to clean up each dependency by cleaning up its dependents first. That way you're no longer worried about prioritizing in which order the cleanup happens - the tree handles that automatically.
And you can use a tree for storing pub/sub subscribers almost as easily as you can use a list.
Using a test-driven development approach could get you what you need, and would ensure your entire application is not only fully testable, but completely covered by tests that prove it does what you want. I'd start by describing exactly what you need to do to meet one single requirement.
One thing you know you want to do is add a provider, so a TestAddProvider() test seems appropriate. Note that it should be pretty simple at this point, and have nothing to do with a composite pattern. Once that's working, you know that a provider has a dependent. Create a TestAddProviderWithDependent() test, and see how that goes. Again, it shouldn't be complex. Next, you'd likely want to TestAddProviderWithTwoDependents(), and that's where the list would get implemented. Once that's working, you know you want the Provider to also be a Dependent, so a new test would prove the inheritance model worked. From there, you'd add enough tests to convince yourself that various combinations of adding providers and dependents worked, and tests for exception conditions, etc. Just from the tests and requirements, you'd quickly arrive at a composite pattern that meets your needs. At this point I'd actually crack open my copy of GoF to ensure I understood the consequences of choosing the composite pattern, and to make sure I didn't add an inappropriate wart.
Another known requirement is to delete providers, so create a TestDeleteProvider() test, and implement the DeleteProvider() method. You won't be far away from having the provider delete its dependents, too, so the next step might be creating a TestDeleteProviderWithADependent() test. The recursion of the composite pattern should be evident at this point, and you should only need a few more tests to convince yourself that deeply nested providers, empty leafs, wide nodes, etc., all will properly clean themselves up.
I would assume that there's a requirement for your providers to actually provide their services. Time to test calling the providers (using mock providers for testing), and adding tests that ensure they can find their dependencies. Again, the recursion of the composite pattern should help build the list of dependencies or whatever you need to call the correct providers correctly.
You might find that providers have to be called in a specific order. At this point you might need to add prioritization to the lists at each node within the composite tree. Or maybe you have to build an entirely different structure (such as a linked list) to call them in the right order. Use the tests and approach it slowly. You might still have people concerned that you delete dependents in a particular externally prescribed order. At this point you can use your tests to prove to the doubters that you will always delete them safely, even if not in the order they were thinking.
If you've been doing it right, all your previous tests should continue to pass.
Then come the tricky questions. What if you have two providers that share a common dependency? If you delete one provider, should it delete all of its dependencies even though a different provider needs one of them? Add a test, and implement your rule. I figure I'd handle it through reference counting, but maybe you want a copy of the provider for the second instance, so you never have to worry about sharing children, and you keep things simpler that way. Or maybe it's never a problem in your domain. Another tricky question is if your providers can have circular dependencies. How do you ensure you don't end up in a self-referential loop? Write tests and figure it out.
After you've got this whole structure figured out, only then would you start thinking about the data you would use to describe this hierarchy.
That's the approach I'd consider. It may not be right for you, but that's for you to decide.
Unit Testing
With unit testing, we only want to test the code that makes up the individual unit of source code, typically a class method or function in PHP (Unit Testing Overview). Which indicates that we don't want to actually test the external API in Unit Testing, we only want to test the code we are writing locally. If you do want to test entire workflows, you are likely wanting to perform integration testing (Integration Testing Overview), which is a different beast.
As you specifically asked about designing for Unit Testing, lets assume you actually mean Unit Testing as opposed to Integration Testing and submit that there are two reasonable ways to go about designing your Provider classes.
Stub Out
The practice of replacing an object with a test double that (optionally) returns configured return values is refered to as stubbing. You can use a stub to "replace a real component on which the SUT depends so that the test has a control point for the indirect inputs of the SUT. This allows the test to force the SUT down paths it might not otherwise execute". Reference & Examples
Mock Objects
The practice of replacing an object with a test double that verifies expectations, for instance asserting that a method has been called, is referred to as mocking.
You can use a mock object "as an observation point that is used to verify the indirect outputs of the SUT as it is exercised. Typically, the mock object also includes the functionality of a test stub in that it must return values to the SUT if it hasn't already failed the tests but the emphasis is on the verification of the indirect outputs. Therefore, a mock object is lot more than just a test stub plus assertions; it is used a fundamentally different way".
Reference & Examples
Our Advice
Design your class to both all both Stubbing and Mocking. The PHP Unit Manual has an excellent example of Stubbing and Mocking Web Service. While this doesn't help you out of the box, it demonstrates how you would go about implementing the same for the Restful API you are consuming.
Where is the best place for the db queries to take place?
We suggest you use an ORM and not solve this yourself. You can easily Google PHP ORM's and make your own decision based off your own needs; our advice is to use Doctrine because we use Doctrine and it suits our needs well and over the past few years, we have come to appreciate how well the Doctrine developers know the domain, simply put, they do it better than we could do it ourselves so we are happy to let them do it for us.
If you don't really grasp why you should use an ORM, see Why should you use an ORM? and then Google the same question. If you still feel like you can roll your own ORM or otherwise handle the Database Access yourself better than the guys dedicated to it, we would expect you to already know the answer to the question. If you feel you have a pressing need to handle it yourself, we suggest you look at the source code for a number a of ORM's (See Doctrine on Github) and find the solution that best fits your scenario.
Thanks for asking a fun question, I appreciate it.
Every single dependency relationship within your class hierarchy must be accessible from outside world (shouldn't be highly coupled). For instance, if you are instantiating class A within class B, class B must have setter/getter methods implemented for class A instance holder in class B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection
The furthermost problem I can see with your code - and this hinders you from testing it actually - is making use of static class method calls:
Provider::create('external::create-user')
$user = Provider_External::createUser()
$customer = Provider_Gapps_Customer::create($user)
$subscription = Provider_Gapps_Subscription::create($customer)
...
It's epidemic in your code - even if you "only" outlined them as static for "brevity". Such attitiude is not brevity it's counter-productive for testable code. Avoid these at all cost incl. when asking a question about Unit-Testing, this is known bad practice and it is known that such code is hard to test.
After you've converted all static calls into object method invocations and used Dependency Injection instead of static global state to pass the objects along, you can just do unit-testing with PHPUnit incl. making use of stub and mock objects collaborating in your (simple) tests.
So here is a TODO:
Refactor static method calls into object method invocations.
Use Dependency Injection to pass objects along.
And you very much improved your code. If you argue that you can not do that, do not waste your time with unit-testing, waste it with maintaining your application, ship it fast, let it make some money, and burn it if it's not profitable any longer. But don't waste your programming life with unit-testing static global state - it's just stupid to do.
Think about layering your application with defined roles and responsibilities for each layer. You may like to take inspiration from Apache-Axis' message flow subsystem. The core idea is to create a chain of handlers through which the request flows until it is processed. Such a design facilitates plugable components which may be bundled together to create higher order functions.
Further you may like to read about Functors/Function Objects, particularly Closure, Predicate, Transformer and Supplier to create your participating components. Hope that helps.
Have you looked at the state design pattern? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern
You could make all your steps as different states in state machine and it would look like graph. You could store this graph in your database table/xml, also every provider can have his own graph which represents order in which execution should happen.
So when you get into certain state you may trigger event/events (save user, get user). I dont know your application specific, but events can be res-used by other providers.
If it fails on some of the steps then different graph path is executed.
If you will correctly abstract it you could have loosely coupled system which follows orders given by graph and executes events based on state.
Then later if you need add some other provider you only need to create graph and/or some new events.
Here is some example: https://github.com/Metabor/Statemachine
The architecture of the Session component in Zend Framework 2 is yet undocumented and I'm having some trouble understanding it's practical use (compared to the very intuitive Symfony Session for example).
A short summary of the important pieces:
Zend\Session\Storage\SessionStorage maps and replaces the $_SESSION superglobal
Zend\Session\SessionManager is a facade to manage the storage, the session cookies, session configuration, session validation, etc.
Zend\Session\Container is a sort of replacement for the old Session_Namespace, different Containers share one Manager instance (via a static field).
There is no component that represents a collection of namespaces (containers) and therefore there is no way of using methods like 'issetNamespaceX', 'unsetNamespaceX', etc. Nobody (including the Manager as well as Storage) knows about the containers, whether there are any, and if, how many with what names.
Matthew Weier O'Phinney explained this circumstance as follows:
The Container is a special class for working with isolated segments of
the current Storage instance. [...] If anything, a Storage adapter
would contain Containers, not the Manager. However, we also want to
allow more basic usage of storage, which makes the Container
orthogonal to Storage, and which explains the difference in has-a
relations.
I see a couple of practical problems with this solution with regard to proper dependency injection. Obviously the Manager can be seen as a service with a rather long lifetime and therefore qualifies for constructor injection. Unfortunately, the Manager has no clue about the Containers which forces me to either inject Containers as well (bad because rather short lived and takes slots away), write my own additional functionality to make the Storage or the Manager Container-aware (should be framework functionality) or create Containers in my Consuming classes (which I want to avoid obviously).
So the Zend solution doesn't seem practical to me. If I want to use the Manager, the FlashMessenger and an additional container, I need to inject 4 (four!) classes. If I do the same with the Symfony Session, I only need to inject 1 (one) class.
Furthermore Containers don't qualify for injection since they're potentially short lived run time objects, which may exist or may not at a given point during script execution. With Symfony Session this is not a problem since the Session is aware of it's bags (containers), with ZF2 this is a problem since the Manager is NOT aware of the Containers.
Main question: How am I supposed to use Zend\Session with Containers in practice?
Additional question: Is there a good reason not to provide real namespace functionality similar to ZF1 or for example similar to the Symfony SessionBag?
I'm not 100% certain I understand what issues you're getting at.
First, the constructor for a Container accepts both the namespace for the container, as well as optionally the Manager instance: $container = new Container('your container namespace here', $manager). You can specify a default manager instance to use as well: Container::setDefaultManager($manager).
Second, a Container represents simply a named array within the Storage instance used. As such, you can test for existence of a container by doing an isset($storage['your container namespace here']) call.
What exact issues are you running up against that the above do not solve? From your description, it sounds like (a) you were not aware that containers have a 1:1 relationship with the storage, and (b) that you can inject a manager into the container instances. If there are additional problems, I'd like to better understand them.
I am working with Codeignitor 2.x and I was originally using controllers as modules (though not completely HMVC), in that I had a Top Level controller that would call other lower level controllers. My thinking was that because these lower level controllers were still interacting with the view, that they should remain controllers rather than models or drivers.
What I found, however, is that each instance of a controller also spawns a new instance of CI. So I would have 3 or 4 instances of CI running for each request. Ton of overhead, and also caused session issues.
I have since moved these lower level controllers into the library as drivers. They now capture the CI instance in the construct method, and make modifications to it. This makes it VERY nice to work with, and doesn't require the HMVC extension. The drivers are not externally callable either, so it allows me to funnel all requests through specific entry points.
My question is whether this is structurally correct. I have always held the notion that drivers should only modify the data they are provided through their method calls, but many of these drivers will pull information directly from GET and POST, and while they will not directly append to the View, they are often accessing view files, and passing the processed view to the CI instance for output.
[EDIT] A little more context:
One of the drivers I have created is essentially a user login driver called 'Access'. It makes calls to the 'User' model for create/login/logout methods. The driver uses the POST data to check the User model, then loads the correct view with errors and whatever is needed. The idea, being, with 2 lines, I can include this driver in any controller throughout the project, so there is a significant decrease in code redundancy. Again, I know that the drivers should be confined to their scope, however the driver does not modify anything outside it's scope, but simply returns the view it has created.
Is there another method to for doing this that is more inline with straight MVC?
I can't say whether it is right or wrong. But if I were you, I wouldn't do that. I'd probably refactor some of the code. I'd make sure that they don't grab and manipulate data directly from the $_GET or $_POST superglobals. Instead, pass in some data as arguments to a function call. This would make testing easier, since you don't have to simulate a GET or a POST request. While technically, you could just set the value for the superglobals manually from the code, but I'd not recommend doing that. Supplying data as arguments would be much better, especially if you want to write test cases that are to be executed subsequently. Plus, having the libraries interacting with the scopes beyond its own might introduce some hidden gotchas.
In my opinion, libraries are meant to be something like modules, where you can just drag and drop, and then use them without any hassle. If your code really needs to grab or manipulate values from $_GET or $_POST, maybe they are meant to be models instead. Also, you might want to think whether your code is actually a library or not. Ask yourself, will this code be useful outside this application? Or is it highly dependent and can only be useful for this particular app? If you say yes to the latter, then it's probably should be a model instead of a library. Last thing, you should leave the views to the controller. Just return the data you need from the library/model method then pass it to the view from the controller.
I have read the service container chapter in the Symfony2 book multiple times and read SO answers and other resources regarding the topic, but I still just don't seem to get it.
So far, everything I've read has drilled one main truth into my head: the container itself should (practically) never be directly injected into a dependent. This seems to work fine for providing dependencies to other services, but what if an entity in my model wants to inspect the current security context, for instance?
I'm aware that I can implement ContainerAwareInterface and then call setContainer() from a container-aware context to gain access to the container itself in this case, but isn't this the same as injecting the container from the service configuration which is to be avoided at all costs?
What you describe is just bad design. Your model shouldn't be dependent on the service container. If you need to perform some security checks then you would create a service that has the necessary dependencies injected to it and then pass your model objects to it.
By your example it sounds like you're trying to do validation which is described here http://symfony.com/doc/master/book/validation.html and works much like I stated.