I'm trying to figure out how to add a method to a class in a Laravel package, so that all controllers and models that call that class can access the new method. How do I replace this class in the IoC?
This is the package in question, Angel CMS. The package is my creation, so I can modify it if we need to add aliases or anything to accomplish this.
Let's say I want to add a method to this class:
vendor/angel/core/src/models/PageModule.php
Okay, so I copy the class file to here:
app/models/PageModule.php
And then I modify the copied file, adding a namespace and the desired custom_function method:
<?php namespace MyModels;
use Eloquent;
class PageModule extends Eloquent {
protected $table = 'pages_modules';
public static function custom_function()
{
return 'It works!';
}
}
As you can see, I am using the MyModels namespace here.
Then, I run a composer dump-autoload.
Next, I open up my app/routes.php and register the binding and set up a test route:
App::bind('PageModule', function($app) {
return new \MyModels\PageModule;
});
Route::get('test-binding', function() {
return PageModule::custom_function();
});
But, when visiting the test route, I always receive the same error that the method is undefined.
What am I doing wrong here? Thank you in advance for any help.
To Clarify:
I am attempting to replace the class application-wide so that all other classes (controllers/models/etc.) that call PageModule will have access to the custom_function method. Thanks.
To be honest, I'm pretty new to all this IoC, dependency inversion/injection concept too. But I think I've gone through the same struggle before. What I would do, as much as my knowledge allows, is...
Add a constructor to src/controllers/admin/AdminPageController.php:
protected $pageModule;
public function __construct(PageModule $pageModule)
{
$this->pageModule = $pageModule;
}
Then where you did $module = new PageModule in the same file. You replace it with:
$module = $this->pageModule;
The two modifications above makes use of Laravel's IoC to allow injecting a different PageModule object into your controller, instead of strictly creating PageModule in your code.
Now at this point Laravel should know that when it constructs the AdminPageController, it should create a PageModule and inject into the controller for you.
Since your controller now expects a PageModule class, you can no longer do class PageModule extends Eloquent in your app anymore, because even though the name is the same, PHP does not think that it is! You'll need to extend it:
So let's rename your app/models/PageModule.php to app/models/CustomPageModule.php, and in the file change the class to:
class CustomPageModule extends \PageModule {
Up to this point, you also have a CustomPageModule class that is a child of your package's PageModule. All you need to do now is to let Laravel knows that if any controllers ask for PageModule, it should serve the controller with your MyModels\CustomPageModule instead.
So at the top of your app's routes.php file:
App::bind('PageModule', 'MyModels\CustomPageModule');
Your AdminPageController should now be using your CustomPageModule and can use whatever public methods that are in there!
I'm expecting to be editing this answer heavily since this will be quite a long discussion. My first try at answering above isn't the best code you can write, but I hope it takes the least amount of edit to the original code, and then we can work up from there.
Or fast track by reading up articles like http://culttt.com/2013/07/08/creating-flexible-controllers-in-laravel-4-using-repositories
You probably have a alias for the PageModule facade, you should override this alias using your class \MyModels\PageModule in your app/config/app.php file.
Be careful, it seems like you are overwriting the PageModule class instead of extending it. You should probably extend the parent class instead of Eloquent.
Related
I am using Laravel 5.8 and I'm attempting to modify a package class from the Vendor directory. To acheive this, I have created a new class which extends the Vendor class, and I can replace the named functions within it- all working great.
However, the original class 'uses' a class, which I have mimicked in my new class, as follows:
use VendorName\PackageName\OriginalController
// use VendorName\PackageName\SomeClass as StoreRequest; How can I replace this...
use App\Http\Requests\NewRequestClass as StoreRequest; // ... with this..? (not working)
class NewController extends OriginalController {
private function somefunction(StoreRequest $request){ // This doesn't work; it is still using the StoreReqest defined in OriginalController
// ...
}
}
See comments- Is it possible to override this?
Its generally not possible modify/delete class or function. Not without extensions like Classkit. But i am not really a fan of this type of code. But you can Check these questions, which might help:
Redefining PHP class functions on the fly?
Deleting entire PHP Class
Redefining PHP function?
As for the title I've googled about two hours searching for a efficient answer and read repeatedly the official documentation, but without any step further, considering I'm relatively new to the framework. The doubt arise while searching for a correct way to share some code between controllers and i stumbled in service providers, so:
I've created say a MyCustomServiceProvider;
I've added it to the providers and aliases arrays within the app.php file;
finally I've created a custom helpers class and registered it like:
class MyCustomServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider
{
public function boot()
{
//
}
public function register()
{
$this->app->bind('App\Helpers\Commander', function(){
return new Commander();
});
}
}
So far, however, if I use that custom class within a controller I necessarily need to add the path to it through the use statement:
use App\Helpers\Commander;
otherwise I get a nice class not found exception and obviously my controller does not his job.
I suspect there's something which escapes to me on service providers! :-)
So far, however, if I use that custom class within a controller I
necessarily need to add the path to it through the use statement:
`use App\Helpers\Commander;`
otherwise I get a nice class not found
exception and obviously my controller does not his job.
Yes, that's how it works. If you don't want to use the full name, you can use a Facade instead.
Create the Facade class like this:
class Commander extends Facade
{
protected static function getFacadeAccessor() { return 'commander'; }
}
register the service:
$this->app->singleton('commander', function ($app) {
return new Commander();
});
add the alias to your config/app.php:
'aliases' => [
//...
'Commander' => Path\To\Facades\Commander::class,
//...
],
and use it like a Facade:
\Commander::doStuff();
On why your code still works, even when you remove the bind:
When you type-hint a parameter to a function, and Laravel does not know about the type you want (through binding), Laravel will do its best to create that class for you, if it is possible. So even though you didn't bind the class, Laravel will happily create a instance of that class for you. Where you actually need the binding is when you use interfaces. Usually, you'd not type-hint specific classes but a interface. But Laravel can not create a instance of an interface and pass it to you, so Laravel needs to know how it can construct a class which implements the interface you need. In this case, you'd bind the class (or the closure which creates the class) to the interface.
Im new to Laravel and namespaces, but a colleague told me i have to use the namespaces and place all my models in a folder in the app directory, named after the project.
As far as i know this means that in every single controller that uses one or more models, have have to set "use" for every model my controller needs. Example:
<?php
use Foo\Entities\Entity;
use Foo\Entities\Inheritance;
use Foo\Entities\Type;
class EntitiesController extends BaseController {
public function index()
{
$inheritances = Inheritance::all();
$entities = Entity::all();
return View::make('settings/entities')
->with('entities', $entities)
->with('inheritances', $inheritances);
}
}
If we asume that the associated models above will be used everywhere, would it be completely crazy to put the models in the /app/model/ folder and if a controller need a model which overwrite the standard system, then use namespaces?
First things first: namespaces are NOT a Laravel thing, but a PHP feature created to better organize our code.
So, if you want your code organized, you should use namespaces for everything and, yes, you'll have to add 'use' clauses in the top of most of your PHP files. But in Laravel you also can be free to not use namespaces at all, you just have to add your autoload classes directories to your composer.json file:
"autoload": {
"classmap": [
"models"
],
},
Execute
composer dumpautoload
So Composer read all files in your models folder, to create a class map of them, and then you can just drop all uses clauses:
class EntitiesController extends BaseController {
public function index()
{
$inheritances = Inheritance::all();
$entities = Entity::all();
return View::make('settings/entities')
->with('entities', $entities)
->with('inheritances', $inheritances);
}
}
To not use namespaces in your PHP application, these days, may be considered a code smell. The only 'part' of Laravel where people doesn't usually use namespaces is Controllers, but this is also changing in Laravel 5, where controllers will be namespaced by default, but still, you will have the option to not use them, because this is a Composer/PHP thing, not Laravel.
Taylor Otwell has 3 big things always in mind when creating features and evolving Laravel: Best practices, fast coding and beautiful code.
EDIT
Answering your comment, if all your controllers needs to have access to some service or even model, why not add it to your BaseController?
But you may have to take a read at the repository pattern, because your controllers should not really be aware of your models. Developers are now creating a new layer (repository) between controllers and models, and perform the operations in those layers. You can, also, make use of Laravel Dependency Injection to help you with those use clauses you don't like.
It would be something like this:
Create a repository interface:
interface EntityRepositoryInterface {
}
Create the repository:
use Foo\Entities\Entity;
class EntityRepository {
public function find($id)
{
return Entity::find($id);
}
public function all()
{
return Entity::all();
}
}
Create your controllers using your repository:
class EntitiesController extends BaseController {
public function __construct(EntityRepositoryInterface $entityRepository)
{
$this->entityRepository = $entityRepository;
}
public function index()
{
$entities = $this->entityRepository->all();
return View::make('settings/entities')
->with('entities', $entities);
}
}
And you have to tell Laravel Dependency Injection what to instantiate when it needs a EntityRepositoryInterface:
App::bind('EntityRepositoryInterface', 'Foo\Entities\EntityRepository');
There's nothing wrong with putting your models anywhere you like. In fact, I put all my models that extend directly from Eloquent in app/models. You are free to follow this, or not follow it, in your own project.
However, this does come with a caveat. Very few of my classes actually directly interact with these models (Repositories are pretty much it). Those I do put in separate namespaces which are then injected into my controllers. Consequently, I must either use each repository that a controller needs at the top of each file or specify the fully qualified class name every time I reference it.
I would like to extend Laravels Router class (Illuminate\Routing\Router) to add a method I need a lot in my application.
But sadly I can't get this to work. I already extended other classes successfully so I really have no idea where my wrong thinking comes from.
Anyway, right into the code:
<?php
namespace MyApp\Extensions;
use Illuminate\Routing\Router as IlluminateRouter;
class Router extends IlluminateRouter
{
public function test()
{
$route = $this->getCurrentRoute();
return $route->getParameter('test');
}
}
So as you see I want to get the parameter set by {test} in routes.php with a simple call like:
Router::test();
Not sure how to go on now. Tried to bind it to the IOC-Container within my ServiceProvider in register() and boot() but I got no luck.
Whatever I try I get either a constructor error or something else.
All solutions I found are too old and the API has changed since then.
Please help me!
edit:
I already tried binding my own Router within register() and boot() (as said above) but it doesn't work.
Here is my code:
<?php
namespace MyApp;
use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;
use MyApp\Extensions\Router;
class MyAppServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider {
public function register()
{
$this->app['router'] = $this->app->share(function($app)
{
return new Router(new Illuminate\Events\Dispatcher);
}
// Other bindings ...
}
}
When I try to use my Router now I have the problem that it needs an Dispatcher.
So I have to do:
$router = new Router(new Illuminate\Events\Dispatcher); // Else I get an exception :(
Also it simply does nothing, if I call:
$router->test();
:(
And if I call
dd($router->test());
I get NULL
Look at: app/config/app.php and in the aliases array. You will see Route is an alias for the illuminate router via a facade class.
If you look at the facade class in Support/Facades/Route.php of illuminate source, you will see that it uses $app['router'].
Unlike a lot of service providers in laravel, the router is hard coded and cannot be swapped out without a lot of work rewiring laravel or editing the vendor source (both are not a good idea). You can see its hardcoded by going to Illuminate / Foundation / Application.php and searching for RoutingServiceProvider.
However, there's no reason i can think of that would stop you overriding the router class in a service provider. So if you create a service provider for your custom router, which binds to $app['router'], that should replace the default router with your own router.
I wouldn't expect any issues to arise from this method, as the providers should be loaded before any routing is done. So overriding the router, should happen before laravel starts to use the router class, but i've not this before, so be prepared for a bit of debugging if it doesn't work straight away.
So I was asking in the official Laravel IRC and it seems like you simply can't extend Router in 4.1 anymore. At least that's all I got as a response in a pretty long dialogue.
It worked in Laravel 4.0, but now it doesn't. Oh well, maybe it will work in 4.2 again.
Other packages suffer from this as well: https://github.com/jasonlewis/enhanced-router/issues/16
Anyway, personally I'll stick with my extended Request then. It's not that much of a difference, just that Router would've been more dynamic and better fitting.
I'm using Laravel 4.2, and the router is really hard coded into the Application, but I extended it this way:
Edit bootstrap/start.php, change Illuminate\Foundation\Application for YourNamespace\Application.
Create a class named YourNamespace\Application and extend \Illuminate\Foundation\Application.
class Application extends \Illuminate\Foundation\Application {
/**
* Register the routing service provider.
*
* #return void
*/
protected function registerRoutingProvider()
{
$this->register(new RoutingServiceProvider($this));
}
}
Create a class named YourNamespace\RoutingServiceProvider and extend \Illuminate\Routing\RoutingServiceProvider.
class RoutingServiceProvider extends \Illuminate\Routing\RoutingServiceProvider {
protected function registerRouter()
{
$this->app['router'] = $this->app->share(function($app)
{
$router = new Router($app['events'], $app);
// If the current application environment is "testing", we will disable the
// routing filters, since they can be tested independently of the routes
// and just get in the way of our typical controller testing concerns.
if ($app['env'] == 'testing')
{
$router->disableFilters();
}
return $router;
});
}
}
Finally, create YourNamespace\Router extending \Illuminate\Routing\Router and you're done.
NOTE: Although you're not changing the name of the class, like Router and RoutingServiceProvider, it will work because of the namespace resolution that will point it to YourNamespace\Router and so on.
I'm trying to extend Laravel's Auth Guard class by one additional method, so I'm able to call Auth::myCustomMethod() at the end.
Following the documentation section Extending The Framework I'm stuck on how to exactly do this because the Guard class itself doesn't have an own IoC binding which I could override.
Here is some code demonstrating what I'm trying to do:
namespace Foobar\Extensions\Auth;
class Guard extends \Illuminate\Auth\Guard {
public function myCustomMethod()
{
// ...
}
}
Now how should I register the extended class Foobar\Extensions\Auth\Guard to be used instead of the original Illuminate\Auth\Guard so I'm able to call Auth::myCustomMethod() the same way as e.g. Auth::check()?
One way would be to replace the Auth alias in the app/config/app.php but I'm not sure if this is really the best way to solve this.
BTW: I'm using Laravel 4.1.
I would create my own UserProvider service that contain the methods I want and then extend Auth.
I recommend creating your own service provider, or straight up extending the Auth class in one of the start files (eg. start/global.php).
Auth::extend('nonDescriptAuth', function()
{
return new Guard(
new NonDescriptUserProvider(),
App::make('session.store')
);
});
This is a good tutorial you can follow to get a better understanding
There is another method you could use. It would involve extending one of the current providers such as Eloquent.
class MyProvider extends Illuminate\Auth\EloquentUserProvider {
public function myCustomMethod()
{
// Does something 'Authy'
}
}
Then you could just extend auth as above but with your custom provider.
\Auth::extend('nonDescriptAuth', function()
{
return new \Illuminate\Auth\Guard(
new MyProvider(
new \Illuminate\Hashing\BcryptHasher,
\Config::get('auth.model')
),
\App::make('session.store')
);
});
Once you've implemented the code you would change the driver in the auth.php config file to use 'nonDescriptAuth`.
Only way to add (and also replace existing functions) is to create copy of Guard.php file in your project and in app/start/global.php add:
require app_path().'/models/Guard.php';
Of course it's ugly method, but I spent over hour to test all possibilities [how to change things stored in Session by Auth] and it always end with error:
... _contruct of class HSGuard requires first parameter to be 'UserProviderInterface' and get 'EloquentUserProvider' ...