I'm working on a new Laravel 4 project which I'm developing with a test-driven approach. I was able to test models like a boss just fine when all of my models were in the global namespace. However, I like to namespace stuff. I added namespaces to all of my models and controllers, but now when I run phpunit, I'm getting ErrorException: User Model is not an valid Class for FactoryMuff.
I've tried specifying the namespaces in the $factory variable as defined in my model, for example:
public static $factory = array(
'title' => 'string',
'slug' => 'string',
'content' => 'text',
'author_id' => 'factory|\\Project\\Model\\User',
);
However I still get the same error. I've also tried specifying the namespaces in the actual test case itself, for example:
$user = FactoryMuff::create('\\Project\\Model\\User');
I still get the same error.
I've also attemted to add use statements to the tests and models to make sure that the appropriate models are available within the scope of the tests, but that didn't yield any results either.
Question
Is it possible to use FactoryMuff with namespaced models; and if so, how?
YES, it is possible to use namespaced models with FactoryMuff.
In addition to declaring the fully namespaced class in the $factory variable within the model and the FactoryMuff::create() argument, you must also use the full namespace of the model in the relationship declaration. For example:
public function author()
{
return $this->hasMany('Project\\Model\\Post');
}
And in the related model:
public function post()
{
return $this->belongsTo('Project\\Model\\User');
}
Related
In Laravel Models use functions that are static and the documentation uses static functions to show how Models work. If I create a new Model for my application, it extends the base Model class but why is Laravel using static functions? I thought the idea is static anything is bad? For example, it makes testing harder?
I'm just confused as most things can be retrieved from the DI container? For example, a Model called Flight, why is it not used like this inside a controller:
namespace App\Http\Controllers;
use App\Flight;
class FlightController
{
public __construct(Flight $flight)
{
$this->flight = $flight; // etc.
}
}
And Models are not even using a Facade either? When I create my own models am I suppose to always use static functions as well?
I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, but I think you are mistaking Facades for static methods. Read this https://laravel.com/docs/7.x/facades#how-facades-work, Laravel uses the magic method _callStatic() to resolve to actual instances. So it looks static, but it isn't.
I am trying to use a trait as a typehint for my Laravel resource controllers.
The controller method:
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Commentable $commentable)
In which the Commentable is the trait typehint which my Eloquent models use.
The Commentable trait looks like this:
namespace App\Models\Morphs;
use App\Comment;
trait Commentable
{
/**
* Get the model's comments.
*
* #return \Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Relations\MorphMany
*/
public function Comments()
{
return $this->morphMany(Comment::class, 'commentable')->orderBy('created_at', 'DESC');
}
}
In my routing, I have:
Route::resource('order.comment', 'CommentController')
Route::resource('fulfillments.comment', 'CommentController')
Both orders and fulfillments can have comments and so they use the same controller since the code would be the same.
However, when I post to order/{order}/comment, I get the following error:
Illuminate\Contracts\Container\BindingResolutionException
Target [App\Models\Morphs\Commentable] is not instantiable.
Is this possible at all?
So you want to avoid duplicate code for both order and fulfillment resource controllers and be a bit DRY. Good.
Traits cannot be typehinted
As Matthew stated, you can't typehint traits and that's the reason you're getting the binding resolution error. Other than that, even if it was typehintable, the container would be confused which model it should instantiate as there are two Commentable models available. But, we'll get to it later.
Interfaces alongside traits
It's often a good practice to have an interface to accompany a trait. Besides the fact that interfaces can be typehinted, you're adhering to the Interface Segregation principle which, "if needed", is a good practice.
interface Commentable
{
public function comments();
}
class Order extends Model implements Commentable
{
use Commentable;
// ...
}
Now that it's typehintable. Let's get to the container confusion issue.
Contexual binding
Laravel's container supports contextual binding. That's the ability to explicitly tell it when and how to resolve an abstract to a concrete.
The only distinguishing factor you got for your controllers, is the route. We need to build upon that. Something along the lines of:
# AppServiceProvider::register()
$this->app
->when(CommentController::class)
->needs(Commentable::class)
->give(function ($container, $params) {
// Since you're probably utilizing Laravel's route model binding,
// we need to resolve the model associated with the passed ID using
// the `findOrFail`, instead of just newing up an empty instance.
// Assuming this route pattern: "order|fullfilment/{id}/comment/{id}"
$id = (int) $this->app->request->segment(2);
return $this->app->request->segment(1) === 'order'
? Order::findOrFail($id)
: Fulfillment::findOrFail($id);
});
You're basically telling the container when the CommentController requires a Commentable instance, first check out the route and then instantiate the correct commentable model.
Non-contextual binding will do as well:
# AppServiceProvider::register()
$this->app->bind(Commentable::class, function ($container, $params) {
$id = (int) $this->app->request->segment(2);
return $this->app->request->segment(1) === 'order'
? Order::findOrFail($id)
: Fulfillment::findOrFail($id);
});
Wrong tool
We've just eliminated duplicate controller code by introducing unnecessary complexity which is as worse as that. 👍
Even though it works, it's complex, not maintainable, non-generic and worst of all, dependent to the URL. It's using the wrong tool for the job and is plain wrong.
Inheritance
The right tool to eliminate these kinda problems is simply inheritance. Introduce an abstract base comment controller class and extend two shallow ones from it.
# App\Http\Controllers\CommentController
abstract class CommentController extends Controller
{
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Commentable $commentable) {
// ...
}
// All other common methods here...
}
# App\Http\Controllers\OrderCommentController
class OrderCommentController extends CommentController
{
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Order $commentable) {
return parent::store($commentable);
}
}
# App\Http\Controllers\FulfillmentCommentController
class FulfillmentCommentController extends CommentController
{
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Fulfillment $commentable) {
return parent::store($commentable);
}
}
# Routes
Route::resource('order.comment', 'OrderCommentController');
Route::resource('fulfillments.comment', 'FulfillCommentController');
Simple, flexible and maintainable.
Arrrgh, wrong language
Not so fast:
Declaration of OrderCommentController::store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Order $commentable) should be compatible with CommentController::store(CreateCommentRequest $request, Commentable $commentable).
Even though overriding method parameters works in the constructors just fine, it simply does not for other methods! Constructors are special cases.
We could just drop the typehints in both parent and child classes and go on with our lives with plain IDs. But in that case, as Laravel's implicit model binding only works with typehints, there won't be any automatic model loading for our controllers.
Ok, maybe in a better world.
🎉Update: See PHP 7.4's support for type variance 🎉
Explicit route model binding
So what we gonna do?
If we explicitly tell the router how to load our Commentable models, we can just use the lone CommentController class. Laravel's explicit model binding works by mapping route placeholders (e.g. {order}) to model classes or custom resolution logics. So, while we're using our single CommentController we can utilize separate models or resolution logics for orders and fulfillments based on their route placeholders. So, we drop the typehint and rely on the placeholder.
For resource controllers, the placeholder name depends on the first parameter you pass to the Route::resource method. Just do a artisan route:list to find out.
Ok, let's do it:
# App\Providers\RouteServiceProvider::boot()
public function boot()
{
// Map `{order}` route placeholder to the \App\Order model
$this->app->router->model('order', \App\Order::class);
// Map `{fulfillment}` to the \App\Fulfilment model
$this->app->router->model('fulfillment', \App\Fulfilment::class);
parent::boot();
}
Your controller code would be:
# App\Http\Controllers\CommentController
class CommentController extends Controller
{
// Note that we have dropped the typehint here:
public function store(CreateCommentRequest $request, $commentable) {
// $commentable is either an \App\Order or a \App\Fulfillment
}
// Drop the typehint from other methods as well.
}
And the route definitions remain the same.
It's better than the first solution, as it does not rely on the URL segments which are prone to change contrary to the route placeholders which rarely change. It's also generic as all {order}s will be resolved to \App\Order model and all {fulfillment}s to the App\Fulfillment.
We could alter the first solution to utilize route parameters instead of URL segments. But there's no reason to do it manually when Laravel has provided it to us.
Yeah, I know, I don't feel good, too.
You can't typehint traits.
However, you can typehint interfaces. So you can create an interface that requires the methods from the trait and resolve that. Then have your classes implement that interface and you should be OK.
EDIT: As #Stefan has kindly pointed out, it's still likely to be difficult to resolve the interface to a concrete class because it will need to resolve to different classes under different circumstances. You could access the request in the service provider and use the path to determine how to resolve it, but I'm a bit dubious of that. I think putting them in separate controllers and using inheritance/traits to share common functionality may be a better bet, since the methods in each controller can type hint the required object, and then pass them to the equivalent parent method.
For my case I have following resources:
Route::resource('books/storybooks', 'BookController');
Route::resource('books/magazines', 'BookController');
After php artisan route:cache and it creates the route to tie up with 'magazine' model.
The solution is to add following line in app/Providers/RouteServiceProvider.php > boot() method, after parent::boot():
Route::model('magazine', \App\Book::class);
Pay attention to the singular and plural.
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.
Good day!
The more I read, the more I get confused about this. What is the difference between a Facade and Aliases?
I have this Class:
/app/libraries/Project/Data.php
namespace PJ;
class Data {
// It is much like a data container, with static methods and properties for saving info
}
And the corresponding facade, so I can access by using just PJD:: .
According to some webpage around:
... Laravel Facades are proxies. They wrap around and call functions
on the underlying true implementation of the code. Further, in the
context of a Laravel application, these Facades are accessed by
assigning them to aliases. This use of the Dependency Injection
container allow you to reference something like
Illuminate\Support\Facades\Filesystem by simply calling File.
(http://ryantablada.com/post/proxies-service-locators-alias-facades-and-war)
But, I've also found and successfully tested that adding something like:
__app/config/app.php__
'aliases' => array(
//....,
'PJD' => 'PJ\Data',
),
I can also access my class the same way.
So, what's the difference?
Thanks
EDIT #01
I have created a class named Data in /app/libraries/Project/Data.php
namespace PJ;
class Data {
// It is much like a data container, with static methods and properties for saving info
}
I have a Facade Class for this Class Data /app/libraries/Project/DataFacade.php
use Illuminate\Support\Facades\Facade;
class PJD extends Facade {
protected static function getFacadeAccessor() {
return 'PJData';
}
}
And I have a Service Provider for them: /app/libraries/Project/DataServiceProvider.php
use Illuminate\Support\ServiceProvider;
class DataServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider {
public function register() {
$this->app->singleton('PJData', function() {
return new PJ\Data;
});
}
}
I also have added to /app/config/app.php:
'providers' => array(
// ....
'DataServiceProvider',
),
and in composer.json I've added a psr-4 line to direct PJ namespace to /app/libraries/Project
"psr-4": {
"PJ\\": "app/libraries/Project"
},
By doing all this, I can access my class from anywhere in the project just by PJD:: instead of PJ\Data::.
However, I've also noticed that just by adding to /app/config/app.php
'aliases' => array(
//....,
'PJD' => 'PJ\Data',
),
I get exactly the same result without all that facades and ServiceProviders. So, what's the point of one or another?
Thanks, and sorry for the large post.
Facade and Alias are two totally different concepts.
you can not access PJ\Data\ by PJD:: unless you have setup alias in the service provider while binding.
If you are accessing it, without defining it in config/app.php, then you have set it up in the service provider file itself.
Definition of alias,
used to indicate that a named person is also known or more familiar under another specified name.
It simply means you are giving a different name to the class so that it will be easier to call.
e.g.
if you have a class like this: Foo\Bar\AVeryLongNamespaceClassName\Data, you can just give an alias, (e.g. PJD) and access its methods and properties by this alias.
Note:
Unit testing is an important aspect of why facades work the way that they do. In fact, testability is the primary reason for facades to even exist.
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.