Does anyone know why can't one use controller method injection in Laravel 5 to make the $router singleton available inside a controllers method, like in the code below?
use Illuminate\Routing\Router;
class WelcomeController extends Controller {
// ...
public function test($name = 'default var value', Router $router)
{
// stuff like taking the {name} part of /say-hello-to/{name?}
// ...using $router->input('name') for example
// ...assuming a route like: Route::get('say-hello-to/{name?}', 'WelcomeController#test')
}
}
An alternative way to get the same thing (idiomatic access to an url part inside a controller method) is useful, but I've already thought of a way to do this and I'm mainly interested in why this doesn't just work, as what I'm trying to get is a deeper understanding of how Laravel works and what advanced patterns can one emply when working with it.
OK, I first thought about deleting this after I figured out the answer myself in ~5min, but then again, maybe it's better to write this for others to be able to google:
When combining optional URL arguments (like 'test/{name?}') with controller method injection, always put the injected parameters before the ones with default values in the method declaration, otherwise you will end up staring at some pretty confusing errors when accessing the URL variant without the optional parameter.
So, in the example above, it should have been:
public function test(Router $router, $name = 'default var value')
...instead of:
public function test($name = 'default var value', Router $router)
And, btw, if someone more experienced with Laravel than me comes across this, please comment if you think this is a Laravel 5 bug that should be reported to the developers, or if you think this is the intended behavior for such situations.
Related
I created a simple test for my new Laravel 7 application. But when I run php artisan test I get the following error.
Target [Illuminate\Contracts\View\Factory] is not instantiable.
The error doesn't appear when I go to the page in the browser.
$controller = new HomeController();
$request = Request::create('/', 'GET');
$response = $controller->home($request);
$this->assertEquals(200, $response->getStatusCode());
Although "Just write feature tests" may seem like a cop-out ("They're not unit tests!"), it is sound advice if you do not want to get bogged down by framework-specific knowledge.
You see, this is one of those problems that come from using facades, globals, or static methods. All sorts of things happen outside of your code (and thus your test code) in order for things to work.
The problem
To understand what is going on, you first need to know how Laravel utilizes Containers and Factories in order to glue things together.
Next, what happens is:
Your code (in HomeController::home() calls view() somewhere.
view() calls app() to get the factory that creates Views1
app() calls Container::make
Container::make calls Container::resolve1
Container::resolve decides the Factory needs to be built and calls Container::build to do so
Finally Container::build (using PHP's ReflectionClass figures out that \Illuminate\Contracts\View\Factory can not be Instantiated (as it is an interface) and triggers the error you see.
Or, if you're more of a visual thinker:
The reason that the error is triggered is that the framework expects the container to be configured so that a concrete class is known for abstracts (such as interfaces).
The solution
So now we know what is going on, and we want to create a unit-test, what can we do?
One solution might seem to not use view. Just inject the View class yourself! But if you try to do this, you'll quickly find yourself going down a path that will lead to basically recreating loads of framework code in userland. So not such a good idea.
A better solution would be to mock view() (Now it is really a unit!). But that will still require recreating framework code, only, within the test code. Still not that good.[3]
The easiest thing is to simply configure the Container and tell it which class to use. At this point, you could even mock the View class!
Now, purists might complain that this is not "unit" enough, as your tests will still be calling "real" code outside of the code-under-test, but I disagree...
You are using a framework, so use the framework! If your code uses glue provided by the framework, it makes sense for the test to mirror this behavior. As long as you don't call non-glue code, you'll be fine![4]
So, finally, to give you an idea of how this can be done, an example!
The example
Lets say you have a controller that looks a bit like this:
namespace App\Http\Controllers;
class HomeController extends \Illuminate\Routing\Controller
{
public function home()
{
/* ... */
return view('my.view');
}
}
Then your test[5] might look thus:
namespace Tests\Unit\app\Http\Controllers;
use App\Http\Controllers\HomeController;
use Illuminate\Contracts\View\Factory;
class HomeControllerTest extends \PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase
{
public function testHome()
{
/*/ Arange /*/
$mockFactory = $this->createMock(Factory::class);
app()->instance(Factory::class, $mockFactory);
/*/ Assert /*/
$mockFactory->expects(self::once())
->method('make')
->with('my.view')
;
/*/ Act /*/
(new HomeController())->home();
}
}
A more complex example would be to also create a mock View and have that be returned by the mock factory, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Footnotes
app() is asked for the interface Illuminate\Contracts\View\Factory, it is not passed a concrete class name
The reason Container::make does nothing other than call another function is that the method name make is defined by PSR-11 and the Laravel container is PSR compliant.
Also, the Feature test logic provided by Laravel already does all of this for you...
Just don't forget to annotate the test with #uses for the glue that is needed, to avoid warnings when PHPUnit is set to strict mode regarding "risky" tests.
Using a variation of the "Arrange, Act, Assert" pattern
This is not how you test endpoints in Laravel. You should let Laravel instantiate the application as it is already setup in the project, the examples you can see here.
What you already wrote can be rewritten to something like this.
$response = $this->call('GET', route('home')); // insert the correct route
$response->assertOk(); // should be 200
For the test to work, you should extend the TestCase.php, that is located in your test folder.
If you're finding this in The Future and you see #Pothcera's wall of text, here's what you need to know:
The ONLY reason he's doing any of that and the ONLY reason you're seeing this in the first place in a Unit test is because he and you haven't changed from PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase to Tests\TestCase in the test file. This exception doesn't exist when you extend the test case that includes app().
My advice would be to simply extend the correct base test case and move on with your life.
Since my app is getting bigger i would like to separate admin prefix actions and views from normal actions and views. The new folder for admin is Controller/admin/UsersController.php.
I would like to change my cakephp controllers and views folder structure to match the prefix I'm using.
Example for admin prefix:
Controller:
app/Controller/UsersController.php (contain view(), index() ...)
app/Controller/admin/UsersController.php (contain admin_view(), admin_index() ...)
View:
app/View/Users/index.ctp (for index() in UsersController.php)
app/View/Users/admin/index.ctp (for admin_index() in admin/UsersController.php)
How can I implement this structure using Cakephp 2.6?
Unlike in 3.x where this is the default behavior for prefixes, this isn't supported in 2.x.
You could try hacking it in using a custom/extended dispatcher (in order to retrieve the desired controller) or even dispatcher filters in case you are adventurous, and in your app controller modify the view template path with respect to the prefix.
That should do it, however I would probably simply go for using plugins instead, this will separate things just fine without any additional fiddling.
If you just want to separate logic you could do something like this. It's untested an just thought to give you just the idea. I'll explain the concept after the code:
public function beforeFilter() {
if ($this->request->prefix === 'foo') {
$name = Inflector::classify($this->request->prefix);
$className = $name . 'ChildController';
App::uses($className, 'Controller/Foo');
$this->ChildController = new $className($this);
}
}
public function __call($method, $args) {
if ($this->request->prefix === 'foo' && method_exists($this->ChildController, $method)) {
call_user_func_array([$this->ChildController, $method], $args);
}
}
Depending on the prefix you can load other classes. How you load that class and how you instantiate it, what params you pass to it is up to you. In my example I'm passing the controller instance directly. I think you could actually init a complete controller here but be aware that components like the Session might cause a problem because they might have been already initiated by the "parent" controller.
When you now call a controller method that doesn't exist it will try to call the same method with the same arguments on the ChildController. Not really a great name for it, but maybe you can come up with something better.
You'll have to implement some logic to load the views from the right place in your classes as well but this shouldn't be hard, just check the controller class.
But actually I don't see your problem, I've worked on an app that hat over 560 tables and not putting the code into sub folders wasn't a problem, it did in fact use a similar solution.
I think you have to much code in your controllers, get more code into your models and the controller shouldn't be a problem.
Another solution might be to think about implementing a service layer in CakePHP which implements the actual business logic while a model is reduced to a data handler. The service would sit between a controller and the model. I've done this a few times as well now and if done right it works very well.
I have a mobile site that I added detection to for iPhones and other iOS devices. The iOS page needs a different layout and views than the regular pages (which are actually for older mobile devices). So, I have some code that does mobile detection, that part was easy. What I'd like to do is make it so that Zend automagically finds and uses the correct layout and view when an iOS device is detected, but that has turned out to be surprisingly hard...
I needed it to be up and running ASAP, so I did a quick and dirty hack that worked: in each action function, I have a simple If statement that detects if the iOS boolean flag has been set (which happens in the controller's init), and if so, overrides the layout and view explicitly. Existing code (in the actions):
if ($_SESSION['user']['iPhone']) {
$this->_helper->layout->setLayout('osriphone'); // 'osr' is the name of the app
$this->_helper->viewRenderer->setRender('iphone/index');
}
So this works, but it's kinda ugly and hacky and has to be put in each action, and each action's Renderer has to be set, etc. I got to reading about the Zend ContextSwitch, and that seemed like exactly the kind of thing I should use (I'm still kind of new to Zend), so I started messing around with it, but can't quite figure it out.
In the controller's init, I'm initializing the ContextSwitch, adding a context for 'iphone' and setting the suffix to 'iphone', and now what I'd like to do is have a single place where it detects if the user is an iOS device and sets the context to 'iphone', and that should make it automatically use the correct layout and view. New code (in the controller's init):
$this->_helper->contextSwitch()->initContext();
$contextSwitch = $this->_helper->getHelper('contextSwitch');
$contextSwitch->addContext('iphone', array('suffix' => 'iphone'));
$contextSwitch->setAutoDisableLayout(false);
if ($_SESSION['user']['iPhone']) {
//$this->_currentContext = 'iphone'; // Doesn't work.
//$contextSwitch->initContext('iphone'); // Doesn't work.
//$contextSwitch->setContext('iPhone'); // Not the function I'm looking for...
// What to put here, or am I barking up the wrong tree?
}
I did some reading on the contextSwitcher, and it seems like there is a lot of stuff on, e.g. setting it to be specific to each particular action (which I don't need; this needs to happen on every action in my app), and going through and modifying all the links to something like /osr/format/iphone to switch the context (which I also don't really need or want; it's already a mobile site, and I'd like the layout/view switch to be totally transparent to the user and handled only from the backend as it is with my quick and dirty hack). These seem like basically an equal amount of code to my quick and dirty hack. So... Anyone have some suggestions? I'm really hoping for just a single line like "$contextSwitch->setContext('iphone');" that I could use in an If statement in my controller's init, but the Zend documentation is awful, and I can't seem to find any examples of people doing something like this on Google or SO.
Ok I think I figured out how to put this into a plugin:
The Plugin:
//This is my own namespace for ZF 1.x library, use your own
class My_Controller_Plugin_Ios extends Zend_Controller_Plugin_Abstract {
public function preDispatch(Zend_Controller_Request_Abstract $request) {
parent::preDispatch($request);
if ($_SESSION['user']['iPhone']) {
$this->_helper->layout->setLayout('osriphone');
$this->_helper->viewRenderer->setRender('iphone/index');
}
}
}
register the plugin in your application.ini
resources.frontController.plugins.ios = "My_Controller_Plugin_Ios"
I think that's all there is to it. Although you may want to look into the userAgent plugin
ContextSwitch operates off the "format" property in the request object (by default). You need to set it somewhere in your app
$requestObject->setParam('format', 'iphone').
I'd set it in a bootstrap, or more appropriately, a controller plugin, but where it goes really depends on your app.
I don't use Zend ContextSwitch so I can't really help there, but you could use some inheritance in your controllers to set all layouts in just a couple of lines. Even though it might still be classed as a "hack" it is a way better hack
Now whenever you execute a action Zend first fires a number of other functions within the framework first, such as the routing, the preDispatch, Action helpers and so on. It also fires a number of things after the action such as PostDispatch. This can be used to your advantage.
First create a controller called something like "mainController" and let it extend Zend_Controller_action and in this controller create a function called predispatch()
Second. Extend your normal controllers to mainController. Since we now have a function called predispatch() Zend will automatically fire this on every controller, and if you do your iPhone/iOS check there it will automagically be performed on every action on every controller, as long as you don't overwrite the method in your controller (you can make this method final to prevent this). You can offcourse use a multitude of different non-Zend functions and/or helpers within the mainctroller to make the code as compact and reusable as possible Se example code below:
<?php
/**
*Maincontroller
*/
class MainController extends Zend_Controller_Action
{
/**
* Predispatch function is called everytime an action is called
*/
final public function preDispatch(){
//for security reasons, make sure that no one access mainController directly
$this->request = $this->getRequest();
if (strtolower($this->request->controller)=='main')
$this->_redirect('/index/index/');
//Check for iPhone
if ($_SESSION['user']['iPhone']) {
$this->_helper->layout->setLayout('osriphone'); // 'osr' is the name of the app
$this->_helper->viewRenderer->setRender('iphone/index');
}
}
}
<?php
/**
*Othercontroller
*/
class OtherController extends MainController
{
/**
* The correct layout for IndexAction is already set by the inherited preDispatch
*/
public function indexAction(){
/* YOUR CODE HERE */
}
}
For a good overview of the dispatch process check these links (same picture in both):
http://nethands.de/download/zenddispatch_en.pdf
http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/22437345.png
I don't know if my question should be asked here or not. Please let me know or move it/delete it if that is the case.
Question:
For the sake of learning, I'm making my own little MVC "library" for a very small personal website. Here is the process being used (please correct me if I'm not even close to doing it the right way):
All requests (except images, etc.) get sent through index.php (boostrap file).
The bootstrap file parses the request and extracts the controller and action, ex:
http://www.Domain.com/Controller/Action/Argument1/Argument2/...
Where Controller is the controller, action is the method called on the controller. In this case, it would end up being: Controller->Action ( Argument1, Argument2 );
Now, what if a user visits:
http://www.Domain.com/Controller/__destruct
or
http://www.Domain.com/Controller/__get/password
Current solution(s):
Run the request through a $config->getURIFilter () method or something
Do a check for method_exists () and is_callable (), etc.
Don't have any methods in the controller that aren't for handling a request
It just seems like this shouldn't be an issue to begin with and my design is wrong.
P.S. I've already looked at plenty of good MVC PHP frameworks (CodeIgniter, Yii, CakePHP, Zend, Swiftlet, etc.)
Either make your Controllers only handle specific actions, e.g.
/controllers
/user
loginController.php
logoutController.php
and then have classes that only do that one thing
class LoginController implements RequestHandler
{
public function handleRequest(Request $request, Response $response)
{
…
}
private function someAuxiliaryMethod() {
…
so that example.com/user/login will create a new LoginController and call the interface method handleRequest. This is a Strategy Pattern.
Or - if you dont want to split your controller actions like this - suffix your actions with a word (Zend Framework does this):
class UserController
{
public function loginAction() {
…
and in your bootstrap you add the suffix and invoke those methods then.
Yet another option would be to introduce a Router that can map URLs to Controller Actions and which can optionally do sanitizing to filter out malformed URLs, e.g. strip underscores.
I suggest that you treat any method preceded with an underscore as a private method (just show a not found page when you do your method_exists check if it starts with an underscore).
Just mark methods that you don't want to expose to your controller as private or protected.
Keep it simple!
I rolled my own MVC structure once for the same reason you're doing it, and the way I solved this was simply making an architectural decision to prefix all routable controller actions with the word "action", ie:
public function actionGetData(){
}
public function actionUpdateSomething() {
}
etc.
The reasons I did this:
You maintain full control over public/protected/private scope in your class without worrying about whether a method is inadvertently exposed via some URL.
It makes the routable actions obvious to the programmer. public function actionDoSomething() is clearly accessible via a public URL (/controllerName/doSomething), whereas public function getErDone() is not.
You're not forced to jump through hoops to identify routable actions. Simply prefix your incoming parameter with "action" and see if the method exists. Fast and simple.
I found this worked really well.
I have a Zend project with a lot of controllers and actions using the method
$this->_redirect('/controller_name/action_name');
for redirecting to other actions after data processing. I've observed that this creates a lot of "magic strings" that hurts the DRY principle: if I change a controller or action name I'd have to change this redirection code in all actions that use it. I'd like to know if there is a better way in Zend to avoid this. I've thought about creating constants for all controllers and action names, like this:
$this->_redirect(HOME_CONTROLLER_INDEX);
But I think this approach isn't very good. Is there a better solution?
You could use const instead
class DefaultController extends Zend_Controller_Action {
const IndexAction = '/controller/action/';
...
$this->_redirect(DefaultController::IndexAction);
}
Or SplEnum. See: http://www.php.net/manual/de/class.splenum.php
Your option of defining constant would be a viable one if you don't plan on modifying your router (since you are using the "compiled" url).
$this->_redirect('/controller/action');
Otherwise, you could rely on a few private methods that call the redirector action helper.
public function redirectControllerAction()
{
$this->_helper->redirector('action', 'controller');
}
This way you can have all your redirections localized in your controllers.
If you have to maintain your code in the future you have all your specifics redirection grouped together and you won't cluter your code with a lot of constants that could hinder readability and make it complex to maintain.
You could also use the controller method to send message to your user using the flash messenger without much effort.
public function redirectControllerAction()
{
$this->_helper->flashMessenger('You have been redirected to a better location');
$this->_helper->redirector('action', 'controller');
}
For the destination controller name, you can add this static method:
public static function getName() { return __CLASS__; }
(You need to add code to remove the controller suffix and call Zend_Filter_Word_xxx to perform inflection)
and use it like this:
$this->_redirect('/'.DefaultController::getName().'/action_name');