I found the discussion on Do you test private method informative.
I have decided, that in some classes, I want to have protected methods, but test them.
Some of these methods are static and short. Because most of the public methods make use of them, I will probably be able to safely remove the tests later. But for starting with a TDD approach and avoid debugging, I really want to test them.
I thought of the following:
Method Object as adviced in an answer seems to be overkill for this.
Start with public methods and when code coverage is given by higher level tests, turn them protected and remove the tests.
Inherit a class with a testable interface making protected methods public
Which is best practice? Is there anything else?
It seems, that JUnit automatically changes protected methods to be public, but I did not have a deeper look at it. PHP does not allow this via reflection.
If you're using PHP5 (>= 5.3.2) with PHPUnit, you can test your private and protected methods by using reflection to set them to be public prior to running your tests:
protected static function getMethod($name) {
$class = new ReflectionClass('MyClass');
$method = $class->getMethod($name);
$method->setAccessible(true);
return $method;
}
public function testFoo() {
$foo = self::getMethod('foo');
$obj = new MyClass();
$foo->invokeArgs($obj, array(...));
...
}
teastburn has the right approach. Even simpler is to call the method directly and return the answer:
class PHPUnitUtil
{
public static function callMethod($obj, $name, array $args) {
$class = new \ReflectionClass($obj);
$method = $class->getMethod($name);
$method->setAccessible(true);
return $method->invokeArgs($obj, $args);
}
}
You can call this simply in your tests by:
$returnVal = PHPUnitUtil::callMethod(
$this->object,
'_nameOfProtectedMethod',
array($arg1, $arg2)
);
You seem to be aware already, but I'll just restate it anyway; It's a bad sign, if you need to test protected methods. The aim of a unit test, is to test the interface of a class, and protected methods are implementation details. That said, there are cases where it makes sense. If you use inheritance, you can see a superclass as providing an interface for the subclass. So here, you would have to test the protected method (But never a private one). The solution to this, is to create a subclass for testing purpose, and use this to expose the methods. Eg.:
class Foo {
protected function stuff() {
// secret stuff, you want to test
}
}
class SubFoo extends Foo {
public function exposedStuff() {
return $this->stuff();
}
}
Note that you can always replace inheritance with composition. When testing code, it's usually a lot easier to deal with code that uses this pattern, so you may want to consider that option.
I'd like to propose a slight variation to getMethod() defined in uckelman's answer.
This version changes getMethod() by removing hard-coded values and simplifying usage a little. I recommend adding it to your PHPUnitUtil class as in the example below or to your PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase-extending class (or, I suppose, globally to your PHPUnitUtil file).
Since MyClass is being instantiated anyways and ReflectionClass can take a string or an object...
class PHPUnitUtil {
/**
* Get a private or protected method for testing/documentation purposes.
* How to use for MyClass->foo():
* $cls = new MyClass();
* $foo = PHPUnitUtil::getPrivateMethod($cls, 'foo');
* $foo->invoke($cls, $...);
* #param object $obj The instantiated instance of your class
* #param string $name The name of your private/protected method
* #return ReflectionMethod The method you asked for
*/
public static function getPrivateMethod($obj, $name) {
$class = new ReflectionClass($obj);
$method = $class->getMethod($name);
$method->setAccessible(true);
return $method;
}
// ... some other functions
}
I also created an alias function getProtectedMethod() to be explicit what is expected, but that one's up to you.
I think troelskn is close. I would do this instead:
class ClassToTest
{
protected function testThisMethod()
{
// Implement stuff here
}
}
Then, implement something like this:
class TestClassToTest extends ClassToTest
{
public function testThisMethod()
{
return parent::testThisMethod();
}
}
You then run your tests against TestClassToTest.
It should be possible to automatically generate such extension classes by parsing the code. I wouldn't be surprised if PHPUnit already offers such a mechanism (though I haven't checked).
I'm going to throw my hat into the ring here:
I've used the __call hack with mixed degrees of success.
The alternative I came up with was to use the Visitor pattern:
1: generate a stdClass or custom class (to enforce type)
2: prime that with the required method and arguments
3: ensure that your SUT has an acceptVisitor method which will execute the method with the arguments specified in the visiting class
4: inject it into the class you wish to test
5: SUT injects the result of operation into the visitor
6: apply your test conditions to the Visitor's result attribute
You can indeed use __call() in a generic fashion to access protected methods. To be able to test this class
class Example {
protected function getMessage() {
return 'hello';
}
}
you create a subclass in ExampleTest.php:
class ExampleExposed extends Example {
public function __call($method, array $args = array()) {
if (!method_exists($this, $method))
throw new BadMethodCallException("method '$method' does not exist");
return call_user_func_array(array($this, $method), $args);
}
}
Note that the __call() method does not reference the class in any way so you can copy the above for each class with protected methods you want to test and just change the class declaration. You may be able to place this function in a common base class, but I haven't tried it.
Now the test case itself only differs in where you construct the object to be tested, swapping in ExampleExposed for Example.
class ExampleTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
function testGetMessage() {
$fixture = new ExampleExposed();
self::assertEquals('hello', $fixture->getMessage());
}
}
I believe PHP 5.3 allows you to use reflection to change the accessibility of methods directly, but I assume you'd have to do so for each method individually.
I suggest following workaround for "Henrik Paul"'s workaround/idea :)
You know names of private methods of your class. For example they are like _add(), _edit(), _delete() etc.
Hence when you want to test it from aspect of unit-testing, just call private methods by prefixing and/or suffixing some common word (for example _addPhpunit) so that when __call() method is called (since method _addPhpunit() doesn't exist) of owner class, you just put necessary code in __call() method to remove prefixed/suffixed word/s (Phpunit) and then to call that deduced private method from there. This is another good use of magic methods.
Try it out.
Alternative.The code below is provided as an example.
Its implementation can be much broader.
Its implementation that will help you test private methods and replacing a private property .
<?php
class Helper{
public static function sandbox(\Closure $call,$target,?string $slaveClass=null,...$args)
{
$slaveClass=!empty($slaveClass)?$slaveClass:(is_string($target)?$target:get_class($target));
$target=!is_string($target)?$target:null;
$call=$call->bindTo($target,$slaveClass);
return $call(...$args);
}
}
class A{
private $prop='bay';
public function get()
{
return $this->prop;
}
}
class B extends A{}
$b=new B;
$priv_prop=Helper::sandbox(function(...$args){
return $this->prop;
},$b,A::class);
var_dump($priv_prop);// bay
Helper::sandbox(function(...$args){
$this->prop=$args[0];
},$b,A::class,'hello');
var_dump($b->get());// hello
You can use Closure as in the code below
<?php
class A
{
private string $value = 'Kolobol';
private string $otherPrivateValue = 'I\'m very private, like a some kind of password!';
public function setValue(string $value): void
{
$this->value = $value;
}
private function getValue(): string
{
return $this->value . ': ' . $this->getVeryPrivate();
}
private function getVeryPrivate()
{
return $this->otherPrivateValue;
}
}
$getPrivateProperty = function &(string $propName) {
return $this->$propName;
};
$getPrivateMethod = function (string $methodName) {
return Closure::fromCallable([$this, $methodName]);
};
$objA = new A;
$getPrivateProperty = Closure::bind($getPrivateProperty, $objA, $objA);
$getPrivateMethod = Closure::bind($getPrivateMethod, $objA, $objA);
$privateByLink = &$getPrivateProperty('value');
$privateMethod = $getPrivateMethod('getValue');
echo $privateByLink, PHP_EOL; // Kolobok
$objA->setValue('Zmey-Gorynich');
echo $privateByLink, PHP_EOL; // Zmey-Gorynich
$privateByLink = 'Alyonushka';
echo $privateMethod(); // Alyonushka: I'm very private, like a some kind of password!
I made a class for invoking easily private methods (static and non-static) for unit-testing purposes:
class MethodInvoker
{
public function invoke($object, string $methodName, array $args=[]) {
$privateMethod = $this->getMethod(get_class($object), $methodName);
return $privateMethod->invokeArgs($object, $args);
}
private function getMethod(string $className, string $methodName) {
$class = new \ReflectionClass($className);
$method = $class->getMethod($methodName);
$method->setAccessible(true);
return $method;
}
}
Example of usage:
class TestClass {
private function privateMethod(string $txt) {
print_r('invoked privateMethod: ' . $txt);
}
}
(new MethodInvoker)->invoke(new TestClass, 'privateMethod', ['argument_1']);
Related
I know that creating an instance of a Class in the middle of a method it's a bad practice since it makes code hard to test.
But I can't refactor the code, so I need to find a way to mock an Object created with new in the middle of a method under test.
Used Frameworks: PHPUnit, Mockery, WP_Mock
Example: Here I need to mock the get_second_string() method from the instance of the class ExternalClass
Class MyClass {
function methodUnderTest($string) {
$objToMock = new ExternalClass();
$second_string = $objToMock->get_second_string();
$final_string = $string . $second_string;
return $final_string;
}
}
Class TestMyClass extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase {
public function setUp() {
}
public function tearDown() {
}
public function test_methodUnderTest() {
$externalObject = $this->getMockBuilder('ExternalClass')
->setMethods(['get_second_string'])
->getMock;
$externalObject->expects($this->once())
->method('get_second_string')
->willReturn(' two');
$testObj = new MyClass();
$this->assertEquals('one two', $testObj->methodUnderTest('one');
}
}
If you really have no opportunity to refactor the code or do some appropriate integration testing, you might want to take a look at https://github.com/php-test-helpers/php-test-helpers#intercepting-object-creation and https://github.com/krakjoe/uopz/tree/PHP5
Still I think the code you make would profit a lot more from refactoring than monkey patching.
Besides, the refactoring does not need to be very heavy. You might do at least this:
class MyClass
{
private $externalsFactory;
public function __construct($externalsFactory){
$this->externalsFactory = $externalsFactory;
}
public function methodUnderTest($str){
$external = $this->externalsFactory->make();
$second_string = $external->get_second_string();
$finalString = $str.$second_string;
return $finalString;
}
}
class ExternalsFactory
{
public function make(){
return new ExternalClass();
}
}
class ExternalClass
{
public function get_second_string(){
return 'some real stuff may be even from database or whatever else it could be';
}
}
class MyClassTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
private $factoryMock;
private $myClass;
public function setUp(){
$this->factoryMock = $this->getMockBuilder('ExternalsFactory')
->getMock();
$this->myClass = new MyClass($this->factoryMock);
}
public function testMethodUnderTest(){
$extenalMock = $this->createMock('ExternalClass');
$extenalMock->method('get_second_string')
->willReturn('second');
$this->factoryMock->method('make')
->willReturn($extenalMock);
$this->assertSame('first-and-second', $this->myClass->methodUnderTest('first-and-'));
}
}
IMHO there is no way to do such a thing. You should pass the object as parameter to the method.
You can not mock entire object.
But with phpunit you can do something like this:
$f = $this->getMockBuilder(<your_class>)->disableOriginalConstructor()
->setMethods(array(
<mocked_method_1>, <mocked_method_2>
))->getMock();
This way, newly created object ommits constructor and you specify which method are going to behave normally and which you mock.
in testing you can specify what the method/s will return, like this:
$f->method(<mocked_method_1>)->willReturn(<dummy_data>);
using this, you will not test the mocked object in any way, but can test method which is creating the object..
class SomeObject {
protected $foo,
$bar;
protected $context;
public function __construct($context) {
$this->context = $context;
}
public function setFoo($val) {
if ($this->context == 'public') {
throw new \Exception('It is impossible to modify foo property in public context!');
}
$this->foo = $val;
}
public function setBar($val) {
if ($this->context == 'api') {
throw new \Exception('It is impossible to modify bar property in API context!');
}
$this->bar = $val;
}
}
As you can see from this piece of "code" - object restricts setters depending on context value. This code is really hard to maintain. How can we rewrite it to make it beautiful and easy maintainable?
My thoughts are:
Make $context an object(s) implementing interface
isAllowed($object, $propertyName).
After making $context an object we have to thing about how can we store "restrictions" in $context object taking in mind there are a lot of different objects similar to SomeObject.
In every setter I should check $this->context->isAllowed($this, 'foo') - it looks not good. So, probably we want to add some "proxy" over SomeObject?
Passing $context to constructor also seems rather ugly for me.
What's your ideas about it?
Just two general observations:
You may want to segregate your classes into two parts: an immutable base class and a mutable extension:
class Foo {
protected $bar, $baz;
}
class MutableFoo extends Foo {
public function setBar($bar) {
$this->bar = $bar;
}
..
}
This easily solves the problem when the context is defined at object instantiation time and won't ever change. Instead of instantiating with a different context which determines the mutability, you simply instantiate a mutable or immutable version of the class.
If you still need more runtime checks, maybe simply using assertions is the best way to simplify the code:
public function setBar($bar) {
$this->assertCanSet('bar');
$this->bar = $bar;
}
protected function assertCanSet($property) {
if (!/* can set $property */) {
throw new Exception("Cannot set property $property");
}
}
Maybe on the construct, fill a list of restricted methods.
so, for instance :
class SomeObject {
protected $foo,
$bar;
protected $context;
protected $restrictedMethods;
public function __construct($context) {
$this->context = $context;
if($this->context == 'public') {
$this->restrictedMethods['setFoo'] = true;
} else if ($this->context == 'api') {
$this->restrictedMethods['setBar'] = true;
}
}
public function setFoo($val) {
if ($this->isRestricted('setFoo')) {
throw new \Exception('It is impossible to modify foo property in '.$this->context.' context!');
}
$this->foo = $val;
}
public function setBar($val) {
if ($this->isRestricted('setFoo')) {
throw new \Exception('It is impossible to modify bar property in '.$this->context.' context!');
}
$this->bar = $val;
}
protected function isRestricted($methodName) {
return array_key_exists($methodName, $this->restrictedMethods);
}
}
If you are trying to write good OOP, then "Interface Segregation" from the SOLID principle may be useful to you.
interface IBase
{
public function doMethod1();
public function doMethod2();
public function doMethod3();
}
interface IFoo extends IBase
{
public function setFoo($val);
}
interface IBar extends IBase
{
public function setBar($val);
}
function doWork(IBase $obj, $val)
{
$obj->doMethod1();
$obj->doMethod2();
$obj->doMethod3();
if ($obj instanceof IFoo) {
$obj->setFoo($val);
}
if ($obj instanceof IBar) {
$obj->setBar($val);
}
}
I doubt this example is exactly what you need, but I will use it to explain the basic idea.
A class should only have a "Single Responsibility". What that responsibility encompasses can vary however, so in general it is best to limit a class's functionality to a single area of concern as best you can.
If you want to follow "Liskov substitution", then throwing exceptions like that in your functions simply because the "context" was irrelevant, violates this principle.
Enter "Interface segregation":
By implementing an interface, you are (to a certain extent) guaranteeing to the caller of the implemented methods, that those methods will work. By excluding them, you are telling the caller that those methods don't exist.
In the example, the doWork function expects an instance of IBase, and safely calls the methods of that interface. After that, it runs introspection of the object to determine if other "applicable" methods are available.
The goal behind interface segregation is to limit the amount of unneeded features a class is forced to implement, so for you, if the context is public, it shouldn't need the setFoo method.
A clean solution would be to have an ObjectFactory class that creates different objects based on a $context parameter, and having two separate classes (with a common base class) that allows writing to the appropriate properties.
Please find below a possible implementation for your schema:
/**
* Base class that allows subclasses to define which properties are
* writable via setters. Subclasses must not add public setters,
* otherwise the mechanism within this class will not work; subclasses
* can add protected setters, though
*/
class PropertyRestricter {
// only properties listed here are writable
// to be initialised by subclasses
protected $writableProperties;
public function __construct() {
// default implementation allows no writable properties
$this->writableProperties = array();
}
public function __call($method, $arguments) {
$matches = false;
// check if a setter was called, extract the property name
// there needs to be at least one argument to the setter
if(count($arguments) && preg_match('/^set([A-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]+)$/',$matches)) {
$propName = $matches[1];
$propName[0] = strtolower($propName[0]);
// update the property with the given value
// or throw an exception if the property is not writable
if(is_array($this->writableProperties) && in_array($propName, $this->writableProperties)) {
$this->{$propName} = $arguments[0];
} else {
throw new Exception(get_class() . ": $propName is not writable");
}
} else {
// not a setter, nor a public method
// maybe display a user error
}
}
}
/**
* Common properties for the actual classes
*/
class BaseObject extends PropertyRestricter {
protected $foo, $bar;
}
class PublicObject extends BaseObject {
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct();
$this->writableProperties = array('foo');
}
}
class APIObject extends BaseObject {
public function __construct() {
parent::__construct();
$this->writableProperties = array('bar');
}
}
class ObjectFactory {
public function createObject($context) {
switch($context) {
case 'public': return new PublicObject();
case 'api': return new APIObject();
default: return null;
}
}
}
The root of the objects is the PropertyRestricter class that allows subclasses to define which properties are writable. It makes use of the magic method __call() in order to be able to intercept setter calls and to validate the attempt to write to the property. However please note that this works only if subclasses don't add public setters for their properties.
The next level is the BaseObject class, which only defines the two properties, in order to reduce code redundancy.
The last level contains the two classes that get instantiated by the ObjectFactory: PublicObject, 'APIObject. These classes simply initialise thewritablePropertiesarray, as the rest of the work is done by thePropertyRestricter` class.
This is also a scalable solution, as it allows adding as many properties and subclasses as needed, each subclass defining its property writing rules.
Also the property update within the __call() method can be customised, I implemented it in the simplest way by directly setting the property. Actual setters can be used in subclasses and __call() can be updated to call the setters, with the mention that the setters need to be protected in order for the mechanism to work.
I'm having trouble unit testing a class that has a method called within the constructor. I don't understand how to mock this. Perhaps I should use the 'setUp' method of phpUnit?
I'm using the Mockery library. Is there is a better tool than this?
class ToTest
{
function __construct() {
$this->methodToMock(); // need to mock that for future tests
}
// my methods class
}
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
If you class is difficult to instantiate to test, that is a code smell that your class is doing too much or doing work in the constructor.
http://misko.hevery.com/code-reviewers-guide/
Flaw #1: Constructor does Real Work
Warning Signs
new keyword in a constructor or at field declaration
Static method calls in a constructor or at field declaration
Anything more than field assignment in constructors
Object not fully initialized after the constructor finishes (watch
out for initialize methods)
Control flow (conditional or looping logic) in a constructor
Code does complex object graph construction inside a constructor
rather than using a factory or builder
Adding or using an initialization block
Whatever your methodToMock function does in your constructor needs to be rethought. As mentioned in the other answers, you probably want to use dependency injection to pass in things that your class is doing.
Rethink what your class is actually doing and refactor so that it is easier to test. This also has the benefit of making your class easier to reuse and modify later on.
The problem here is that the method can not be mocked as the object is not yet instantiated.
sectus answer is valid but maybe not very flexible, as it can be difficult to change the behavior of the mocked method on different tests.
You can create another class that does the same as the method you want to mock, and have an instance of that class passed as a constructor argument. That way you can pass a mock class on your test. Usually the problem you're having is a smell of a class doing too many things.
To test this class, you would mock the internal object (methodToMock) and then use Dependency Injection to pass the mocked service instead of the real one.
Class:
class ToTest{
private $svc;
// Constructor Injection, pass the Service object here
public function __construct($Service = NULL)
{
if(! is_null($Service) )
{
if($Service instanceof YourService)
{
$this->SetService($Service);
}
}
}
function SetService(YourService $Service)
{
$this->svc = $Service
}
function DoSomething($request) {
$svc = $this->svc;
$result = $svc->getResult($request); // Get Result from Real Service
return $result;
}
function DoSomethingElse($Input) {
// do stuff
return $Input;
}
}
Test:
class ServiceTest extends PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
// Simple test for DoSomethingElse to work Properly
// Could also use dataProvider to send different returnValues, and then check with Asserts.
public function testDoSomethingElse()
{
$TestClass = new YourService();
$this->assertEquals(1, $TestClass->DoSomethingElse(1));
$this->assertEquals(2, $TestClass->DoSomethingElse(2));
}
public function testDoSomething()
{
// Create a mock for the YourService class,
// only mock the DoSomething() method. Calling DoSomethingElse() will not be processed
$MockService = $this->getMock('YourService', array('DoSomething'));
// Set up the expectation for the DoSomething() method
$MockService->expects($this->any())
->method('getResult')
->will($this->returnValue('One'));
// Create Test Object - Pass our Mock as the service
$TestClass = new ToTest($MockService);
// Or
// $TestClass = new ToTest();
// $TestClass->SetService($MockService);
// Test DoSomething
$RequestString = 'Some String since we did not specify it to the Mock'; // Could be checked with the Mock functions
$this->assertEquals('One', $TestClass->DoSomething($RequestString));
}
}
I was also wondering this which is how I found your question. In the end I decided to do something a little bit dirty... use reflection.
Here's the method I want to test:
/**
* ArrayPool constructor.
* #param array $tasks Things that might be tasks
*/
public function __construct(array $tasks)
{
foreach ($tasks as $name => $parameters) {
if ($parameters instanceof TaskInterface) {
$this->addTask($parameters);
continue;
}
if ($parameters instanceof DescriptionInterface) {
$this->addTask(new Task($parameters));
continue;
}
$this->addPotentialTask($name, $parameters);
}
}
For the purposes of this test, I don't want to actually run ->addTask or ->addPotentialTask, only know that they would be called.
Here's the test:
/**
* #test
* #covers ::__construct
* #uses \Foundry\Masonry\Core\Task::__construct
*/
public function testConstruct()
{
$task = $this->getMockForAbstractClass(TaskInterface::class);
$description = $this->getMockForAbstractClass(DescriptionInterface::class);
$namedTask = 'someTask';
$parameters = [];
$arrayPool =
$this
->getMockBuilder(ArrayPool::class)
->disableOriginalConstructor()
->setMethods(['addTask', 'addPotentialTask'])
->getMock();
$arrayPool
->expects($this->at(0))
->method('addTask')
->with($task);
$arrayPool
->expects($this->at(1))
->method('addTask')
->with($this->isInstanceOf(TaskInterface::class));
$arrayPool
->expects($this->at(2))
->method('addPotentialTask')
->with($namedTask, $parameters);
$construct = $this->getObjectMethod($arrayPool, '__construct');
$construct([
0=>$task,
1=>$description,
$namedTask => $parameters
]);
}
The magic happens in getObjectMethod which takes an object and returns a callable closure that will invoke the method on an instance of the object:
/**
* Gets returns a proxy for any method of an object, regardless of scope
* #param object $object Any object
* #param string $methodName The name of the method you want to proxy
* #return \Closure
*/
protected function getObjectMethod($object, $methodName)
{
if (!is_object($object)) {
throw new \InvalidArgumentException('Can not get method of non object');
}
$reflectionMethod = new \ReflectionMethod($object, $methodName);
$reflectionMethod->setAccessible(true);
return function () use ($object, $reflectionMethod) {
return $reflectionMethod->invokeArgs($object, func_get_args());
};
}
And I know the loop and the conditions all function correctly without going off into code I don't want to enter here.
TL;DR:
Disble __construct
Set up mocks
Use reflection to call __construct after the object was instantiated
Try not to lose any sleep over it
Just extend this class and override your method if it public or protected.
class ToTest
{
function __construct(){
$this->methodToMock(); // need to mock that for future tests
}
// my methods class
public function methodToMock(){}
}
class ToTestTest{
/**
* #test
* it should do something
*/
public function it_should_do_something(){
$ToTest = \Mockery::mock('ToTest')
->shouldDeferMissing()
->shouldReceive("methodToMock")
->andReturn("someStub")
->getMock();
$this->assertEquals($expectation, $ToTest->methodToMock());
}
}
I'm building a User Class for my new website, however this time I was thinking to build it little bit differently...
C++, Java and even Ruby (and probably other programming languages) are allowing the use of nested/inner classes inside the main class, which allows us to make the code more object-oriented and organized.
In PHP, I would like to do something like so:
<?php
public class User {
public $userid;
public $username;
private $password;
public class UserProfile {
// some code here
}
private class UserHistory {
// some code here
}
}
?>
Is that possible in PHP? How can I achieve it?
UPDATE
If it's impossible, will future PHP versions might support nested classes?
Intro:
Nested classes relate to other classes a little differently than outer classes. Taking Java as an example:
Non-static nested classes have access to other members of the enclosing class, even if they are declared private. Also, non-static nested classes require an instance of the parent class to be instantiated.
OuterClass outerObj = new OuterClass(arguments);
outerObj.InnerClass innerObj = outerObj.new InnerClass(arguments);
There are several compelling reasons for using them:
It is a way of logically grouping classes that are only used in one place.
If a class is useful to only one other class, then it is logical to
relate and embed it in that class and keep the two together.
It increases encapsulation.
Consider two top-level classes, A and B, where B needs access to
members of A that would otherwise be declared private. By hiding class
B within class A, A's members can be declared private and B can access
them. In addition, B itself can be hidden from the outside world.
Nested classes can lead to more readable and maintainable code.
A nested class usually relates to it's parent class and together form a "package"
In PHP
You can have similar behavior in PHP without nested classes.
If all you want to achieve is structure/organization, as Package.OuterClass.InnerClass, PHP namespaces might sufice. You can even declare more than one namespace in the same file (although, due to standard autoloading features, that might not be advisable).
namespace;
class OuterClass {}
namespace OuterClass;
class InnerClass {}
If you desire to emulate other characteristics, such as member visibility, it takes a little more effort.
Defining the "package" class
namespace {
class Package {
/* protect constructor so that objects can't be instantiated from outside
* Since all classes inherit from Package class, they can instantiate eachother
* simulating protected InnerClasses
*/
protected function __construct() {}
/* This magic method is called everytime an inaccessible method is called
* (either by visibility contrains or it doesn't exist)
* Here we are simulating shared protected methods across "package" classes
* This method is inherited by all child classes of Package
*/
public function __call($method, $args) {
//class name
$class = get_class($this);
/* we check if a method exists, if not we throw an exception
* similar to the default error
*/
if (method_exists($this, $method)) {
/* The method exists so now we want to know if the
* caller is a child of our Package class. If not we throw an exception
* Note: This is a kind of a dirty way of finding out who's
* calling the method by using debug_backtrace and reflection
*/
$trace = debug_backtrace(DEBUG_BACKTRACE_IGNORE_ARGS, 3);
if (isset($trace[2])) {
$ref = new ReflectionClass($trace[2]['class']);
if ($ref->isSubclassOf(__CLASS__)) {
return $this->$method($args);
}
}
throw new \Exception("Call to private method $class::$method()");
} else {
throw new \Exception("Call to undefined method $class::$method()");
}
}
}
}
Use case
namespace Package {
class MyParent extends \Package {
public $publicChild;
protected $protectedChild;
public function __construct() {
//instantiate public child inside parent
$this->publicChild = new \Package\MyParent\PublicChild();
//instantiate protected child inside parent
$this->protectedChild = new \Package\MyParent\ProtectedChild();
}
public function test() {
echo "Call from parent -> ";
$this->publicChild->protectedMethod();
$this->protectedChild->protectedMethod();
echo "<br>Siblings<br>";
$this->publicChild->callSibling($this->protectedChild);
}
}
}
namespace Package\MyParent
{
class PublicChild extends \Package {
//Makes the constructor public, hence callable from outside
public function __construct() {}
protected function protectedMethod() {
echo "I'm ".get_class($this)." protected method<br>";
}
protected function callSibling($sibling) {
echo "Call from " . get_class($this) . " -> ";
$sibling->protectedMethod();
}
}
class ProtectedChild extends \Package {
protected function protectedMethod() {
echo "I'm ".get_class($this)." protected method<br>";
}
protected function callSibling($sibling) {
echo "Call from " . get_class($this) . " -> ";
$sibling->protectedMethod();
}
}
}
Testing
$parent = new Package\MyParent();
$parent->test();
$pubChild = new Package\MyParent\PublicChild();//create new public child (possible)
$protChild = new Package\MyParent\ProtectedChild(); //create new protected child (ERROR)
Output:
Call from parent -> I'm Package protected method
I'm Package protected method
Siblings
Call from Package -> I'm Package protected method
Fatal error: Call to protected Package::__construct() from invalid context
NOTE:
I really don't think trying to emulate innerClasses in PHP is such a good idea. I think the code is less clean and readable. Also, there are probably other ways to achieve similar results using a well established pattern such as the Observer, Decorator ou COmposition Pattern. Sometimes, even simple inheritance is sufficient.
Real nested classes with public/protected/private accessibility were proposed in 2013 for PHP 5.6 as an RFC but did not make it (No voting yet, no update since 2013 - as of 2021/02/03):
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/nested_classes
class foo {
public class bar {
}
}
At least, anonymous classes made it into PHP 7
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
From this RFC page:
Future Scope
The changes made by this patch mean named nested classes are easier to implement (by a tiny bit).
So, we might get nested classes in some future version, but it's not decided yet.
You cannot do this in PHP. However, there are functional ways to accomplish this.
For more details please check this post:
How to do a PHP nested class or nested methods?
This way of implementation is called fluent interface: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface
As per Xenon's comment to Anıl Özselgin's answer, anonymous classes have been implemented in PHP 7.0, which is as close to nested classes as you'll get right now. Here are the relevant RFCs:
Nested Classes (status: withdrawn)
Anonymous Classes (status: implemented in PHP 7.0)
An example to the original post, this is what your code would look like:
<?php
public class User {
public $userid;
public $username;
private $password;
public $profile;
public $history;
public function __construct() {
$this->profile = new class {
// Some code here for user profile
}
$this->history = new class {
// Some code here for user history
}
}
}
?>
This, though, comes with a very nasty caveat. If you use an IDE such as PHPStorm or NetBeans, and then add a method like this to the User class:
public function foo() {
$this->profile->...
}
...bye bye auto-completion. This is the case even if you code to interfaces (the I in SOLID), using a pattern like this:
<?php
public class User {
public $profile;
public function __construct() {
$this->profile = new class implements UserProfileInterface {
// Some code here for user profile
}
}
}
?>
Unless your only calls to $this->profile are from the __construct() method (or whatever method $this->profile is defined in) then you won't get any sort of type hinting. Your property is essentially "hidden" to your IDE, making life very hard if you rely on your IDE for auto-completion, code smell sniffing, and refactoring.
Since PHP version 5.4 you can force create objects with private constructor through reflection. It can be used to simulate Java nested classes. Example code:
class OuterClass {
private $name;
public function __construct($name) {
$this->name = $name;
}
public function getName() {
return $this->name;
}
public function forkInnerObject($name) {
$class = new ReflectionClass('InnerClass');
$constructor = $class->getConstructor();
$constructor->setAccessible(true);
$innerObject = $class->newInstanceWithoutConstructor(); // This method appeared in PHP 5.4
$constructor->invoke($innerObject, $this, $name);
return $innerObject;
}
}
class InnerClass {
private $parentObject;
private $name;
private function __construct(OuterClass $parentObject, $name) {
$this->parentObject = $parentObject;
$this->name = $name;
}
public function getName() {
return $this->name;
}
public function getParent() {
return $this->parentObject;
}
}
$outerObject = new OuterClass('This is an outer object');
//$innerObject = new InnerClass($outerObject, 'You cannot do it');
$innerObject = $outerObject->forkInnerObject('This is an inner object');
echo $innerObject->getName() . "\n";
echo $innerObject->getParent()->getName() . "\n";
You can't do it in PHP. PHP supports "include", but you can't even do that inside of a class definition. Not a lot of great options here.
This doesn't answer your question directly, but you may be interested in "Namespaces", a terribly ugly\syntax\hacked\on\top\of PHP OOP:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.rationale.php
I think I wrote an elegant solution to this problem by using namespaces. In my case, the inner class does not need to know his parent class (like the static inner class in Java). As an example I made a class called 'User' and a subclass called 'Type', used as a reference for the user types (ADMIN, OTHERS) in my example. Regards.
User.php (User class file)
<?php
namespace
{
class User
{
private $type;
public function getType(){ return $this->type;}
public function setType($type){ $this->type = $type;}
}
}
namespace User
{
class Type
{
const ADMIN = 0;
const OTHERS = 1;
}
}
?>
Using.php (An example of how to call the 'subclass')
<?php
require_once("User.php");
//calling a subclass reference:
echo "Value of user type Admin: ".User\Type::ADMIN;
?>
You can, like this, in PHP 7:
class User{
public $id;
public $name;
public $password;
public $Profile;
public $History; /* (optional declaration, if it isn't public) */
public function __construct($id,$name,$password){
$this->id=$id;
$this->name=$name;
$this->name=$name;
$this->Profile=(object)[
'get'=>function(){
return 'Name: '.$this->name.''.(($this->History->get)());
}
];
$this->History=(object)[
'get'=>function(){
return ' History: '.(($this->History->track)());
}
,'track'=>function(){
return (lcg_value()>0.5?'good':'bad');
}
];
}
}
echo ((new User(0,'Lior','nyh'))->Profile->get)();
It is waiting for voting as RFC
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/anonymous_classes
This page keeps coming up in my Internet searches on this subject so figured I should chime in even though this is an 8-year old post. The documentation for PHP5 demonstrates that anonymous classes can be defined within a class method. The object created can extend, implement, and even use other classes, interfaces, and traits. Consider the following OOP paradigm of factory object production. Similar to what #e-i-pi pointed out ...
class Factory {
/**
* Method to manufacture an inner-class object.
*
* #param string $args Arguments to be passed to
* the inner-class constructor.
*/
static function manufacture_object($args) {
/**
* Here's the definition of the inner-class.
*/
return new class($args) {
static $remembers = 'Nothing';
private $args;
function __construct($args) {
$this->$args = $args;
}
function says() {
return $this->args;
}
};
}
}
/**
* Create an inner-class object and have it do its thing.
*/
$mort = Factory::manufacture_object("Hello World!");
echo $mort->says(); // Echoes "Hello World!"
The objects are one-off, so one would expect the static values of the objects returned would not bind from one instance to another. After all, the anonymous class is unique from one object to another. However, late static binding works as one would otherwise expect from a nested class.
$mort = Factory::manufacture_object("I can remember that.");
$mort2 = Factory::manufacture_object("I'll live vicariously through you.");
$mort::$remembers = 'Something';
echo $mort2::$remembers; // Echoes "Something"
So, there you go: inner/nested classes and creation of their objects with static functionality has been possible since September 22, 2013 (right about the time this question was asked).
Put each class into separate files and "require" them.
User.php
<?php
class User {
public $userid;
public $username;
private $password;
public $profile;
public $history;
public function __construct() {
require_once('UserProfile.php');
require_once('UserHistory.php');
$this->profile = new UserProfile();
$this->history = new UserHistory();
}
}
?>
UserProfile.php
<?php
class UserProfile
{
// Some code here
}
?>
UserHistory.php
<?php
class UserHistory
{
// Some code here
}
?>
I've been reading through Effective Java by Joshua Bloch. I also develop in PHP and I wanted to implement the builder pattern outlined in item 2, but PHP doesn't have inner classes. Is there any way to achieve this pattern in PHP, keeping the constructor for the product private?
Since PHP does not support inner classes, there must be a public method on the product class that creates an instance of it. Consider the following PHP classes:
<?php
class NutritionalFactsBuilder {
private $sodium;
private $fat;
private $carbo;
/**
* It is preferred to call NutritionalFacts::createBuilder
* to calling this constructor directly.
*/
function __construct($s) {
$this->sodium = $s;
}
function fat($f) {
$this->fat = $f;
return $this;
}
function carbo($c) {
$this->carbo = $c;
return $this;
}
function getSodium() {
return $this->sodium;
}
function getFat() {
return $this->fat;
}
function getCarbo() {
return $this->carbo;
}
function build() {
return new NutritionalFacts($this);
}
}
class NutritionalFacts {
private $sodium;
private $fat;
private $carbo;
static function createBuilder($s) {
return new NutritionalFactsBuilder($s);
}
/**
* It is preferred to call NutritionalFacts::createBuilder
* to calling this constructor directly.
*/
function __construct(NutritionalFactsBuilder $b) {
$this->sodium = $b->getSodium();
$this->fat = $b->getFat();
$this->carbo = $b->getCarbo();
}
}
echo '<pre>';
var_dump(NutritionalFacts::createBuilder(10)->fat(23)->carbo(1)->build());
echo '</pre>';
?>
Note that in the above example the constructor of NutritionalFacts is public. Due to the constraints of the language, however, having a public constructor is not at all bad. Since one must call the constructor with a NutritionalFactsBuilder, there are only a limited number of ways to instantiate NutritionalFacts. Let's compare them:
// NutritionalFacts Instantiation #0
$nfb = new NutritionalFactsBuilder(10);
$nfb = $nfb->fat(23)->carbo(1);
$nf0 = new NutritionalFacts($nfb);
// NutritionalFacts Instantiation #1
$nfb = new NutritionalFactsBuilder(10);
$nf1 = $nfb->fat(23)->carbo(1)->build();
// NutritionalFacts Instantiation #2
$nf2 = NutritionalFacts::createBuilder(10)->fat(23)->carbo(1)->build();
// NutritionalFacts Instantiation #3
// $nf3 = (new NutritionalFactsBuilder(10))->fat(23)->carbo(1)->build();
To leverage function chaining to its fullest extent, "NutritionalFacts Instantiation #2" is the preferred usage.
"NutritionalFacts Instantiation #3" shows another nuance of PHP syntax; one cannot chain a method on a newly instantiated object. Update: In PHP 5.4.0, there is now support for the syntax in "NutritionalFacts Instantiation #3." I haven't tested it yet though.
Making the Constructor Private
You could make the constructor private, but I wouldn't recommend it. If the constructor were made private, a public, static factory method would be necessary, as in the following code snippet. Looking at the below code, we might as well make the constructor public instead of introducing indirection just to make the constructor private.
class NutritionalFacts {
private $sodium;
private $fat;
private $carbo;
static function createBuilder($s) {
return new NutritionalFactsBuilder($s);
}
static function createNutritionalFacts($builder) {
return new NutritionalFacts($builder);
}
private function __construct($b) {
$this->sodium = $b->getSodium();
$this->fat = $b->getFat();
$this->carbo = $b->getCarbo();
}
}
Immutability is good and definitely something to strive for, this applies to PHP as it does to any other language no matter what. Immutability gives you certainty that you do not have to fear that the instance suddenly mutates without you knowing.
That being said, there is an easy way to implement the builder pattern to build immutable objects even without inner classes (although available now with PHP 7).
The first important building block is a common base class for the actual immutable class and the builder. This allows them to access each others properties. Something that is also known as friend classes or solvable through extended access modifiers in other languages, something PHP does not have. Note that the clone ability is restricted, it makes no sense to clone immutable objects but more about the protected modifier later.
abstract class NutritionalFactData {
protected $sodium = 0;
protected $fat = 0;
protected $carbo = 0;
protected function __clone() {}
}
The immutable class is straight forward with stupid example getters and the default constructor. Note the final modifier for the class itself and that it is not aware of the builder class at all.
final class NutritionalFacts extends NutritionalFactData {
public function getSodium() {
return $this->sodium;
}
public function getFat() {
return $this->fat;
}
public function getCarbo() {
return $this->carbo;
}
}
Now the actual builder implementation. Note how we operate directly on an instance of the immutable class and that we simply clone it when the build method is called. This ensures that later calls to the setters of the builder will not alter the instances that were previously built and ensures that no receiver of such an instance has to take care of the cloning on their own.
final class NutritionalFactBuilder extends NutritionalFactData {
private $nutritional_facts;
public function __construct() {
$this->nutritional_facts = new NutritionalFacts;
}
public function build() {
return clone $this->nutritional_facts;
}
public function setSodium($sodium) {
$this->nutritional_facts->sodium = $sodium;
return $this;
}
public function setFat($fat) {
$this->nutritional_facts->fat = $fat;
return $this;
}
public function setCarbo($carbo) {
$this->nutritional_facts->carbo = $carbo;
return $this;
}
}
For completeness a usage example:
var_dump(
(new NutritionalFactBuilder)
->setSodium(21)
->setFat(42)
->build()
);
Here is the runnable example.
I think it is obvious that we can now implement as many builder implementations as we like. Not really needed for this example but we can think of other constructs where many more properties are involved. Like the car example given on (the very bad) builder pattern article of Wikipedia. We might want to have pre-configured builders for known car categories.
abstract class CarParts {}
final class Car extends CarParts {}
abstract class CarBuilder extends CarParts {
abstract public function build(): Car;
}
final class CompactCarBuilder extends CarBuilder {}
final class SportsCarBuilder extends CarBuilder {}
final class RaceCarBuilder extends CarBuilder {}
In the Gang of Four description of the Builder pattern, you'll find no requirement for an inner class. The key feature is the aggregate relationship between the Director and Builder interface that provide a "blueprint" for putting together a series of Product implementations.
You can find lots of examples of the PHP Builder pattern here:
http://www.php5dp.com/category/design-patterns/builder/
Cheers,
Bill