in my Symfony project I would use a new strategy for manage the data form.
I don't want use the Symfony Form object, but I want use the model to build them.
I don't want to redeclare the Base Doctrine_Record class, so I wrote a new Doctrine_Template: ExtendedModel.
In the ExtendeModel template I've new objects and methods, but I need to override the validate() function of Doctrine_Record.
I tried with
class ExtendedModel extends Doctrine_Template {
[...]
public $validatorSchema;
public function setValidatorSchema(sfValidatorSchema $validatorSchema) {
$this->validatorSchema = $validatorSchema;
}
public function getValidatorSchema() {
return $this->validatorSchema;
}
public function validate() {
$this->getInvoker()->setup();
$errorStack = $this->getInvoker()->getErrorStack();
if ($this->getValidatorSchema()) {
try {
$this->getValidatorSchema()->addOption('allow_extra_fields', true);
$this->getValidatorSchema()->clean($this->getInvoker()->toArray(false));
} catch (sfValidatorErrorSchema $errorSchema) {
$errorStack = $this->getInvoker()->getErrorStack();
foreach ($errorSchema->getErrors() as $key => $error) {
/* #var $error sfValidatorError */
$errorStack->add($key, $error->getMessage());
}
}
}
$this->getInvoker()->validate();
}
}
but Doctrine use the original validate() function.
I want to override some Doctrine_Record functions with a new methods declared into my Doctrine_Template.
Could you suggest me a solution for this problem?
Tnx!
Templates do not override Doctrine_Record methods, they are only fallbacks invoked via the PHP magic __call method when a native method isn't found.
To do this, you need to have your own class in the Doctrine_Record inheritance chain. Fortunately, this is pretty easy:
1. Create myDoctrineRecord
abstract class myDoctrineRecord extends sfDoctrineRecord
{
public function commonRecordMethod() { }
}
I place this file in lib/record, but you can put it anywhere that the autoloader will see it.
2. Set Symfony to use this class in the configureDoctrine callback of your ProjectConfiguration:
public function configureDoctrine(Doctrine_Manager $manager)
{
sfConfig::set('doctrine_model_builder_options', array('baseClassName' => 'myDoctrineRecord'));
}
This is copied/pasted from my previous answer to a similar question. You'll have to rebuild the model as well.
Related
I was wondering if you could help me with the following question. First of all, I would like to tell you that if I am asking this question here, it is because I have already tried many options and none have worked for me. It turns out that I am developing a package with Laravel and I am using Laravel's dependency injection. But I am at a crossroads from which I have not found a way out. I'm trying to get the instance of a class in an intermediate method from a method chain, let me explain. Here is the code very similar to what I have:
PackageServiceProvider.php
<?php
class PackageServiceProvider extends ServiceProvider
{
public function register()
{
$this->configureBindings();
}
private function configureBindings()
{
$this->app->when(A_Class::class)->needs(B_Interface::class)->give(function () {
return new B_Class();
});
}
...
A_Class.php
<?php
class A_Class implements A_Interface
{
private $b_interface;
public function __construct(B_Interface $b_interface)
{
$this->b_interface = $b_interface;
}
public function create($arg1, $arg2)
{
return $this->b_interface->method_1()->call_another_method_from_another_class();
}
}
A_Interface.php
<?php
interface A_Interface extends Arrayable, Rendereable
{
public function create($arg1, $arg2);
...
}
<?php
class B_Class implements B_Interface
{
public function __construct()
{
// Here is the question...
// How could I get here the instance of the class A_Class?
}
public function method_1()
{
// should return another class instance
}
public function method_2()
{
// should return another class instance
}
}
B_Interface.php
<?php
interface B_Interface
{
public function method_1();
public function method_2();
...
}
If you look at class B_Class``, in the __constructmethod I'm trying to get the instance of classA_Class``` from where that class is being called. I have tried the following:
class B_Class implements B_Interface
{
public function __construct(A_Interface $a_interface)
{
// Here is the question...
// How could I get here the instance of the class A_Class?
}
But I get the following error:
Segmentation fault
I guess there must be some way I can achieve what I need. I would appreciate any help in advance.
Because you are referring to class A inside your class B constructor, and class B in your class A constructor, you have introduced a cyclic dependency.
This will resolve to the error you are experiencing, which is the segmentation fault, as outlined here:
https://laravel.io/forum/11-08-2016-circular-dependency-causes-segmentation-fault-error-when-running-php-artisan-optimize
So the answer is to remove the cyclic dependency if possible, as you can have methods from A calling B that calls A for infinity at runtime, and you will get the above error above again.
If your class A and B are relatively small, I would recommend combining them before using a cyclic dependency.
For interest and prosperity, if you want achieve a cyclic dependency, this is possible by registering your Class A with a singleton from inside A's constructor, and putting the reference to the incomplete object into Class B with your code above. I try with laravels singleton here, its untested, but hopefully you'll get the idea.
class A_Class implements A_Interface
{
public function __construct(B_Interface $b_interface)
{
//I dont think you can pass $this to a function when construction is incomplete, hence $that.
$that = $this;
App::singleton('A_Class', function($that){
return $that;
});
$this->b_interface = $b_interface;
}
}
class B_Class implements B_Interface
{
public function __construct(A_Interface $a_interface)
{
//unfinished object, but no more error.
$this->aClass = App::make('A_Class')
}
}
Have a look at the following trait:
trait PrimaryModelRest {
use RestController;
protected $primaryModel;
public function __construct() {
$mc = $this->getPrimaryModelClass();
try {
$this->primaryModel = new $mc();
if(!($this->primaryModel instanceof Model)) {
throw new ClassNotFoundException("Primary Model fatal exception: The given Class is not an instance of Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Model");
}
} catch (Exception $e) {
throw new WrongImplementationException("Primary Model Exception: Class not found.");
}
}
/**
* #return string: Classname of the primary model.
*/
public abstract function getPrimaryModelClass();
// various functions here
}
As you can see the trait makes sure that the using class holds a certain model instance and it implements certain methods. This works as long as the implementing class does not override the constructor.
So here is my question: I want to make sure that either the constructor is called or a better solution, such that I can instantiate this model on initialization.
Please make in answer which respects Multiple inheritance as well es Multi-Level inheritance.
I think you are trying to make the trait do a job it is not designed for.
Traits are not a form of multiple inheritance, but rather "horizontal reuse" - they're often described as "compiler-assisted copy-and-paste". As such, the job of a trait is to provide some code, so that you don't have to copy it into the class manually. The only relationship it has is with the class where the use statement occurs, where the code is "pasted". To aid in this role, it can make some basic requirements of that target class, but after that, the trait takes no part in inheritance.
In your example, you are concerned that a sub-class might try to access $primaryModel without running the constructor code which initialises it, and you are trying to use the trait to enforce that; but this is not actually the trait's responsibility.
The following definitions of class Sub are completely equivalent:
trait Test {
public function foo() {
echo 'Hello, World!';
}
}
class ParentWithTrait {
use Test;
}
class Sub inherits ParentWithTrait {
}
vs:
class ParentWithMethodDefinition {
public function foo() {
echo 'Hello, World!';
}
}
class Sub inherits ParentWithMethodDefinition {
}
In either case, class Sub could have its own definition of foo(), and by-pass the logic you'd written in the parent class.
The only contract that can prevent that is the final keyword, which in your case would mean marking your constructor as final. You can then provide an extension point that can be overridden for sub-classes to add their own initialisation:
class Base {
final public function __construct() {
important_things(); // Always run this!
$this->onConstruct(); // Extension point
}
protected function onConstruct() {
// empty default definition
}
}
class Sub {
protected function onConstruct() {
stuff_for_sub(); // Runs after mandatory important_things()
}
}
A trait can also mark its constructor as final, but this is part of the code being pasted, not a requirement on the class using the trait. You could actually use a trait with a constructor, but then write a new constructor as well, and it would mask the trait's version completely:
trait Test {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait Constructor";
}
}
class Noisy {
use Test;
}
class Silent {
use Test;
public function __construct() {
// Nothing
}
}
As far as the trait is concerned, this is like buying a bottle of beer and pouring it down the sink: you asked for its code and didn't use it, but that's your problem.
Crucially, though, you can also alias the methods of the trait, creating a new method with the same code but a different name and/or a different visibility. This means you can mix in code from traits which declare constructors, and use that code in a more complex constructor, or somewhere else in the class altogether.
The target class might also use the "final + hook" pattern:
trait TestOne {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait TestOne Constructor\n";
}
}
trait TestTwo {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Trait TestTwo Constructor\n";
}
}
class Mixed {
final public function __construct() {
echo "Beginning\n";
$this->testOneConstructor();
echo "Middle\n";
$this->testTwoConstructor();
echo "After Traits\n";
$this->onConstruct();
echo "After Sub-Class Hook\n";
}
use TestOne { __construct as private testOneConstructor; }
use TestTwo { __construct as private testTwoConstructor; }
protected function onConstruct() {
echo "Default hook\n";
}
}
class ChildOfMixed extends Mixed {
protected function onConstruct() {
echo "Child hook\n";
}
}
The trait hasn't forced the Mixed class to implement this pattern, but it has enabled it, in keeping with its purpose of facilitating code reuse.
Interestingly, the below code doesn't work, because the as keyword adds an alias, rather than renaming the normal method, so this ends up trying to override the final constructor from Mixed:
class ChildOfMixed extends Mixed {
use TestTwo { __construct as private testTwoConstructor; }
protected function onConstruct() {
$this->testTwoConstructor();
echo "Child hook\n";
}
}
Use a base class, this will let you handle the trait as a parent.
<?php
trait StorageTrait
{
public function __construct()
{
echo "Storage Trait";
}
}
class StorageAttempt
{
use StorageTrait;
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
echo " - Storage Attempt";
}
}
abstract class StorageBase
{
use StorageTrait;
}
class MyStorage extends StorageBase
{
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
echo ' - My Storage';
}
}
new StorageAttempt(); // won't work - will trigger error
new MyStorage(); // will display "Storage Trait - My Storage"
Also if you are using traits you can also work with properties and getters & setters.
Example: A Storage trait involves that a Storage Engine will be used. You can add the storageEngine property and its getters and setters. (with or without Type Hinting)
interface StorageEngineInterface{}
trait StorageTrait
{
/**
* #var StorageEngineInterface
*/
protected $storageEngine;
/**
* #return StorageEngineInterface
*/
public function getStorageEngine(): StorageEngineInterface
{
return $this->storageEngine;
}
/**
* #param StorageEngineInterface $storageEngine
*/
public function setStorageEngine(StorageEngineInterface $storageEngine)
{
$this->storageEngine = $storageEngine;
return $this;
}
}
Note: this is just an explanation so you can better understand how Traits work
UPDATE
To avoid conflict you can use aliases for trait methods. This way you can use both constructors (from trait and from extended class) you can do the following
class DifferentStorage
{
public function __construct()
{
echo ' diff ';
}
}
class MyDifferentStorage extends DifferentStorage
{
use StorageTrait {
StorageTrait::__construct as otherConstructor;
}
public function __construct()
{
parent::__construct();
self::otherConstructor();
}
}
You could use the interface injection pattern: implement an interface iPrimaryModelRest into the same class that uses the trait PrimaryModelRest:
interface iPrimaryModelRest {
public function init();
public abstract function getPrimaryModelClass();
}
The class that uses the trait woud look like this:
class cMyClass implements iPrimaryModelRest {
use PrimaryModelRest;
}
Then, whenever the class is instantiated (not only autoloaded) you could call a special factory-like initialisation function like this:
class cMyApp {
public function start() {
/** #var cMyClass $oClass */ // enlighten IDE
$oClass = $this->init(new cMyClass);
}
public function init($oClass) {
if ($oClass instanceof iPrimaryModelRest) {$oClass->init();}
if ($oClass instanceof whateverinterface) {
// pass optional stuff, like database connection
}
}
}
The interface is used to determine the capabilities of the class, and sets data/runs corresponding functions. If I'm not mistaken then this pattern is called a Service Locator.
I needed a trait for database connection. To avoid using the __construct in a trait, I've used a magic getter instead:
trait WithDatabaseConnection
{
public function __get(string $name)
{
if ($name === 'pdo') {
return App::make(\PDO::class);
}
trigger_error("Property $name does not exist.");
return null;
}
}
class Foo {
use WithDatabaseConnection;
public function save() {
$this->pdo->query('...');
}
}
I wonder if I can make controllers implementing some methods no matters if that method will be public, private or protected and if it will have any parameter. I just want to ensure, that controller has method with specified name, no more.
For example:
interface SomeInterface {
function someFunction();
function someOtherFunction();
}
class SomeController extends SomeBaseController implements SomeInterface {
//some action
public function someAction() { ... }
//an implementation of SomeInterface method
public function someFunction() { ... }
//an implementation of SomeInterface method
protected function someOtherFunction($someParameter) { ... }
}
I know that it's not possible to do this with ordinary php interfaces but maybe there is some other way in php or maybe symfony2 has some tool to accomplish this?
I know of one way to do this, which relies on the __call() method available in PHP: http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#object.call
__call() is triggered when invoking inaccessible methods in an object context.
You could go ahead and create a parent class that looks like this - although it's not an Interface, so take care if you need it outside a single domain.
class BaseClass{
public function __call($name, $arguments) {
$methodsToImplement = array(
'method1', 'method2', 'method3'
);
if (in_array($name, $methodsToImplement)) {
throw new Exception("Method " . $name . " is not yet implemented.");
}
}
}
It seems there is no way to accomplish this. So I mark my question as reslolved, however if someone knows an answer let me know! :)
Is there anyway (or a pattern) to enforce a call to a parent method?
I have an abstract class like so:
abstract class APrimitive{
public function validate(){
//Do some stuff that applies all classes that extend APrimitive
}
}
Then I have classes that extend upon the APrimitive "base":
class CSophisticated extends APrimitive{
public function validate(){
//First call the parent version:
parent::validate();
//Then do something more sophisticated here.
}
}
The problem is that if we come back to the code in a few months time, and create a few more classes like CSophisticated with a validate() method, there is a possibility that we might forget to make a call to parent::validate() in that method.
Note that some CSophisticated classes may not have the validate() method, so the parent version will be called.
I understand that it is possible to just put in a comment somewhere, to remind the programmer to call parent::validate(), but is there a better way? Perhaps an automated way to throw an exception if the call to parent::validate() was not made in the validate() method would be nice.
You can enforce the call with the following:
abstract class APrimitive{
final public function validate(){
//do the logic in validate
overrideValidate();
}
protected function overrideValidate(){
}
}
class CSophisticated extends APrimitive{
protected function overrideValidate(){
}
}
Now only calls to validate are permitted, which will in turn call your overridden method. The syntax may be a little off (PHP is not my language of choice) but the principle is applyable to most OOP languages.
FURTHER EXPLANATION:
abstract class APrimitive{
public function validate(){
echo 'APrimitive validate call.';
overrideValidate();
}
protected function overrideValidate(){
}
}
class CSophisticated extends APrimitive{
protected function overrideValidate(){
echo 'CSophisticated call.';
}
}
CSophisticated foo;
foo.overrideValidate(); //error - overrideValidate is protected
foo.validate(); //
Output:
APrimitive validate call.
CSophisticated call.
The function call basically does the following:
foo.validate() -> APrimitive.validate() -> ASophisticated.overrideValidate() (or APrimitive.overrideValidate() if it wasn't overriden)
You're looking for The Template Method pattern.
This pattern allows you to modify an operation in some way through sub-classing but ensures that the base class is always involved.
class Base {
//declared final so it can't be overridden
public final function validate() {
//perform base class operations here
//then forward to the sub class
$this->doValidate();
//do some more base class stuff here if needed
}
//override this method to alter validate operation
protected function doValidate(){
//no-op in base
}
}
class Sub {
protected function doValidate() {
//if required
//make the sub-class contribution to validate here
}
}
I am looking for the best way to go about testing the following static method (specifically using a Doctrine Model):
class Model_User extends Doctrine_Record
{
public static function create($userData)
{
$newUser = new self();
$newUser->fromArray($userData);
$newUser->save();
}
}
Ideally, I would use a mock object to ensure that fromArray (with the supplied user data) and save were called, but that's not possible as the method is static.
Any suggestions?
Sebastian Bergmann, the author of PHPUnit, recently had a blog post about Stubbing and Mocking Static Methods. With PHPUnit 3.5 and PHP 5.3 as well as consistent use of late static binding, you can do
$class::staticExpects($this->any())
->method('helper')
->will($this->returnValue('bar'));
Update: staticExpects is deprecated as of PHPUnit 3.8 and will be removed completely with later versions.
There is now the AspectMock library to help with this:
https://github.com/Codeception/AspectMock
$this->assertEquals('users', UserModel::tableName());
$userModel = test::double('UserModel', ['tableName' => 'my_users']);
$this->assertEquals('my_users', UserModel::tableName());
$userModel->verifyInvoked('tableName');
I would make a new class in the unit test namespace that extends the Model_User and test that. Here's an example:
Original class:
class Model_User extends Doctrine_Record
{
public static function create($userData)
{
$newUser = new self();
$newUser->fromArray($userData);
$newUser->save();
}
}
Mock Class to call in unit test(s):
use \Model_User
class Mock_Model_User extends Model_User
{
/** \PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase */
public static $test;
// This class inherits all the original classes functions.
// However, you can override the methods and use the $test property
// to perform some assertions.
}
In your unit test:
use Module_User;
use PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase;
class Model_UserTest extends TestCase
{
function testCanInitialize()
{
$userDataFixture = []; // Made an assumption user data would be an array.
$sut = new Mock_Model_User::create($userDataFixture); // calls the parent ::create method, so the real thing.
$sut::test = $this; // This is just here to show possibilities.
$this->assertInstanceOf(Model_User::class, $sut);
}
}
Found the working solution, would to share it despite the topic is old.
class_alias can substitute classes which are not autoloaded yet (works only if you use autoloading, not include/require files directly).
For example, our code:
class MyClass
{
public function someAction() {
StaticHelper::staticAction();
}
}
Our test:
class MyClassTest
{
public function __construct() {
// works only if StaticHelper is not autoloaded yet!
class_alias(StaticHelperMock::class, StaticHelper::class);
}
public function test_some_action() {
$sut = new MyClass();
$myClass->someAction();
}
}
Our mock:
class StaticHelperMock
{
public static function staticAction() {
// here implement the mock logic, e.g return some pre-defined value, etc
}
}
This simple solution doesn't need any special libs or extensions.
Mockery's Alias functionality can be used to mock public static methods
http://docs.mockery.io/en/latest/reference/creating_test_doubles.html#creating-test-doubles-aliasing
Another possible approach is with the Moka library:
$modelClass = Moka::mockClass('Model_User', [
'fromArray' => null,
'save' => null
]);
$modelClass::create('DATA');
$this->assertEquals(['DATA'], $modelClass::$moka->report('fromArray')[0]);
$this->assertEquals(1, sizeof($modelClass::$moka->report('save')));
One more approach:
class Experiment
{
public static function getVariant($userId, $experimentName)
{
$experiment = self::loadExperimentJson($experimentName):
return $userId % 10 > 5; // some sort of bucketing
}
protected static function loadExperimentJson($experimentName)
{
// ... do something
}
}
In my ExperimentTest.php
class ExperimentTest extends \Experiment
{
public static function loadExperimentJson($experimentName)
{
return "{
"name": "TestExperiment",
"variants": ["a", "b"],
... etc
}"
}
}
And then I would use it like so:
public function test_Experiment_getVariantForExperiment()
{
$variant = ExperimentTest::getVariant(123, 'blah');
$this->assertEquals($variant, 'a');
$variant = ExperimentTest::getVariant(124, 'blah');
$this->assertEquals($variant, 'b');
}
Testing static methods is generally considered as a bit hard (as you probably already noticed), especially before PHP 5.3.
Could you not modify your code to not use static a method ? I don't really see why you're using a static method here, in fact ; this could probably be re-written to some non-static code, could it not ?
For instance, could something like this not do the trick :
class Model_User extends Doctrine_Record
{
public function saveFromArray($userData)
{
$this->fromArray($userData);
$this->save();
}
}
Not sure what you'll be testing ; but, at least, no static method anymore...