I've create an Encryption service and want to access it inside an entity.
Stn like this:
public function setCompanyName(string $companyName, Encryption $encryption)
{
$this->companyName = $encryption->encrypt($companyName);
}
But is it possible to do it without calling this function setCompanyName with two parameters? Do I have to inject container and call service inside the function?
You want to store encrypted data in db right ?
Best way to do this is to create event listener that 'll fire up on each entity save , and make encryption there (you can inject anything you want to listener)
and second event listener that fire up when loading data from db to make decryption
If you do this right all encrytion/decryption thing will be transparent in code (it will only exists in those listeners )
look at this
https://symfony.com/doc/3.4/doctrine/event_listeners_subscribers.html
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/projects/doctrine-orm/en/latest/reference/events.html
It is not possible to inject a service inside an entity.
But you could use an entity listener to use your service and encrypt the company name juste before persisting.
Take a look at https://symfony.com/doc/current/bundles/DoctrineBundle/entity-listeners.html
Maybe create a static method inside Encrypt class, and call it directly in entity?
class Encryption {
public static function encrypt(string $string) {
// your code
}
}
public function setCompanyName(string $companyName) {
$this->companyName = Encryption::encrypt($companyName);
}
Related
I have an asp.net core 3.1 based project. I need to add a custom validation rule that will require a database call in ordered to determine the validity of the value.
For example, when creating a new user, I need to validate that there is no other username in the database with the same username before allowing the user to be created.
If I can create a custom attribute UniqueUsername, then I should be able to do something like this
public class UniqueUsername : ValidationAttribute
{
private readonly UserManager _manager = manager;
public UniqueUsername (UserManager manager)
{
_manager = manager;
}
protected override ValidationResult IsValid(object value, ValidationContext validationContext)
{
string username = value.ToString();
if(_manager.Exists(username))
{
return new ValidationResult("The username provided belong to a different user.");
}
return ValidationResult.Success;
}
}
But, _manager.Exists(username) is a synchronous call. I want to avoid blocking the main thread, so I want a way to call await _manager.ExistsAsync(username) instead to avoid blocking the main thread.
Is there a way to create an attribute that would validate a single property and write errors "if any" to the ModelState?
If this isn't possible using data-annotation, is there an different way to validate property while writting errors to ModelState so when ModelState.IsValid() or TryValidateModel(model) are called, the attribute is called?
The data-annotations you add in your model are meant to validate the data present within the model (although some can also be translated into your database). These are meant to be reused even if you were to use your models on a client framework.
You can use the ModelState functions you mentioned to make async calls to your database. If you want to remove the logic from your controller, you can create utility functions to do so.
If you are open to third-party libraries, there is a great and popular validations library called Fluent Validation. Here is a documentation on how you can make async calls with it: https://docs.fluentvalidation.net/en/latest/async.html
I'm wondering if there is a sort of best practice for the following case.
For instance, I have several services and inject them all as an array into a "factory" service. Then I call a method of this factory and want to get only one service depends on some conditions. After that I execute this service and get a result...
However, some of these services require a random string that I get from a client's request.
Of cause, I can call a service's method with this string as a parameter but several services do not require this string and I'll get "unused variable" in the method.
I guess that I could get service from the factory and then call a setter to add this string into the service. But it does not look like a stateless service.
Is there a more elegant solution to pass parameters that I could not inject into service nor use the setter for it?
Here how it looks in my code
First, I have an interface of all servers that I want to check. The service should support a customer an then it should render information from a DTO.
interface Renderable {
public function supports(Customer $customer);
public function render(CustomerDTO $dto);
}
Next, I have several services. This one uses DTO to render data.
class ServiceOne implements Renderable
{
public function suppots(Customer $customer)
{
return $customer->getPriority() === 1;
}
public function render(CustomerDTO $dto)
{
return 'One: '.$dto->getName();
}
}
However, some services do not need any DTO to render, they just provide a hardcoded value.
class ServiceTwo implements Renderable
{
public function suppots(Customer $customer)
{
return $customer->getPriority() !== 1;
}
// service does not use DTO, it simply output result
// so, I'll get a notice about unused variable
// and I can not remove it from the method since it is in interface
public function render(CustomerDTO $dto)
{
return 'Two';
}
}
This is a factory. It has all services injected as an array. Then it checks and returns the first service that supports a customer instance.
class ServiceFactory
{
/** #var Renderable[] */
private $services;
public function __construct(iterable $services)
{
$this->services = $services;
}
public function getRenderer(Customer $customer)
{
foreach ($this->services as $service)
{
if ($service->supports($customer)
{
return $service;
}
}
}
}
Here like I use factory and its result
$customer = ...; // it comes from a database
$request = ...; // it comes from a http request
$renderService = $factory->getRenderer($customer);
$customerDTO = CustomerDTO::createFromData([
'customerUid' => $customer->getUid(),
'date' => new \DateTime(),
'name' => $request->getSheetUid(),
'tags' => $request->getTags(),
]);
$renderService->render($customerDTO);
So, I have to call Renderer::render with a DTO instance. But some services do not use it to "render" data. I also can not inject it into a renderer service since this object (DTO) is built in a runtime when all services already injected. I also can not inject a RequestStack into service.
Since your parameter came from request - it can't be directly injected into service. Depending on actual logic of your services you can consider one of approaches listed below. Let's call your "random string that came from a client's request" a $requestParam for further reference.
In both cases you will need to get your $requestParam from actual Request object and pass it somewhere else. It can be done in a different ways, I would propose to create listener (e.g. RequestParamListener) for kernel.request event and put here a piece of code that takes parameter from Request and pass it further into this listener. Into approaches listed below I will assume that $requestParam will be passed in this way.
1. Separate provider
You can create separate class (e.g. RequestParamProvider) that will act as provider of this $requestParam for other services. It will receive $requestParam from RequestParamListener and other services that needs to get $requestParam will need to inject this provider and use its getRequestParam() method to obtain required parameter.
From my point of view it is the simplest approach and I would recommend it.
2. Direct injection by factory
Since you have some factory service - you can pass this $requestParam directly into factory and let it to initialize other services. Less flexible because you will need to implement initialization logic by itself and maintain it while project evolves.
3. Direct injection using interface
You can create separate interface (e.g. RequestParamAwareInterface) that will contain setRequestParam() method and let all classes that needs this $requestParam to implement this interface. After that you will need to write separate compiler pass that will collect all such classes (by iterating over ContainerBuilder and looking for implementation of particular interface by class inside service's definition) and pass array of these services to your RequestParamListener. Listener in its turn will be obligated to pass $requestParam for each of given services.
This approach will let your application to grow without need to sync $requestParam injection logic. However it will came at a cost of preliminary instantiation of all affected services regardless of actual further use of created instances.
I have a UserController that has a Destroy function. It is a rather complex function because it demands to destroy all user's data. I have another action, from the Admin panel that deletes all data from a specific set of users.
Since I don't want to replicate the code from the UserController, I would like to call the Destroy function from UserController for each User to destroy its data.
How should I proceed?
Thanks in advance.
Why not move this functionality to a common class method which can be accessed from both the controllers as needed ?
public class UserManager
{
public void Destroy(List<int> userIdsToDestroy)
{
foreach(var userId in userIdsToDestroy)
{
//Execute code to destroy
}
}
}
and from your action methods, you can call it like
var mgr = new UserManager();
var badUsers = new List<int> { 1,2,3};
mgr.Destroy(badUsers);
Update the badUsers variable value as needed based on from where you are calling it.
Shared functionality like this would ideally be in a business layer, and both controllers would call that code. If it's a little app, you could just create a separate folder structure for shared code. Larger projects would have a business layer dll.
Why not make the Destroy() method as a Non-Action method then like
[Non-Action]
public void Destroy(User user)
{
// code goes here
}
You can as well make this Destroy() function as part of your business layer logic instead of handling this in controller. In that case, you call it from anywhere.
If you want it to be #controller, you can as well consider usig [ChildActionOnly] action filter attribute.
I'm currently logging all interactions to my database (added user, updated user, ...) in one table.
An example from my userService:
public function addUserAction()
{
$this->logger->alert("Added user!");
// Code that adds the user to the database (not relevant for my question)
// ...
}
public function updateUserAction($user)
{
$this->logger->alert("Updated user!");
// Code that updates the user to the database (not relevant for my question)
// ...
}
Now I'd like to have separate tables as followed: log_added_users, log_updated_users, etc ...
I have one channel and one handler configured in my config.yml
I have injected the logger into the userService and tagged it with my channel.
services:
userService:
class: Acme\Services\UserService
arguments: ["#logger"]
tags:
- { name: monolog.logger, channel: my_channel }
I'm wondering where I should define in which table to add a certain log entry? I don't think I need more channels as I can only define one for the injected logger (as seen in the config snippet above)
So I'm thinking to add more handlers (one per db table). The thing is: when the log is being written, it will go through all handlers and thus add the same log to all tables?
Or should I just put my updateUserAction in another service, so I will be able to work with another channel?
Any help is appreciated :)
I found out that, for every channel you create, a service gets created automatically for you.
So I just injected another logger into the userService and tagged them with the new channel.
That way I can say for example:
public function addUserAction()
{
$this->logger->alert("user added");
}
public function updateUserAction($user)
{
$this->updateLogger->alert("user updated");
}
i have a HttpModule that creates an CommunityPrincipal (implements IPrincipal interface) object on every request. I want to somehow store the object for every request soo i can get it whenever i need it without having to do a cast or create it again.
Basically i want to mimic the way the FormsAuthenticationModule works.
It assigns the HttpContext.User property an object which implements the IPrincipal interface, on every request.
I somehow want to be able to call etc. HttpContext.MySpecialUser (or MySpecialContext.MySpecialUser - could create static class) which will return my object (the specific type).
I could use a extension method but i dont know how to store the object so it can be accessed during the request.
How can this be achieved ?
Please notice i want to store it as the specific type (CommunityPrincipal - not just as an object).
It should of course only be available for the current request being processed and not shared with all other threads/requests.
Right now i assign my CommunityPrincipal object to the HttpContext.User in the HttpModule, but it requires me to do a cast everytime i need to use properties on the CommunityPrincipal object which isnt defined in the IPrincipal interface.
I'd recommend you stay away from coupling your data to the thread itself. You have no control over how asp.net uses threads now or in the future.
The data is very much tied to the request context so it should be defined, live, and die along with the context. That is just the right place to put it, and instantiating the object in an HttpModule is also appropriate.
The cast really shouldn't be much of a problem, but if you want to get away from that I'd highly recommend an extension method for HttpContext for this... this is exactly the kind of situation that extension methods are designed to handle.
Here is how I'd implement it:
Create a static class to put the extension method:
public static class ContextExtensions
{
public static CommunityPrinciple GetCommunityPrinciple(this HttpContext context)
{
if(HttpContext.Current.Items["CommunityPrinciple"] != null)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Items["CommunityPrinciple"] as CommunityPrinciple;
}
}
}
In your HttpModule just put the principal into the context items collection like:
HttpContext.Current.Items.Add("CommunityPrincipal", MyCommunityPrincipal);
This keeps the regular context's user property in the natural state so that 3rd party code, framework code, and anything else you write isn't at risk from you having tampered with the normal IPrincipal stroed there. The instance exists only during the user's request for which it is valid. And best of all, the method is available to code as if it were just any regular HttpContext member.... and no cast needed.
Assigning your custom principal to Context.User is correct. Hopefully you're doing it in Application_AuthenticateRequest.
Coming to your question, do you only access the user object from ASPX pages? If so you could implement a custom base page that contains the cast for you.
public class CommunityBasePage : Page
{
new CommunityPrincipal User
{
get { return base.User as CommunityPrincipal; }
}
}
Then make your pages inherit from CommunityBasePage and you'll be able to get to all your properties from this.User.
Since you already storing the object in the HttpContext.User property all you really need to acheive you goal is a Static method that acheives your goal:-
public static class MySpecialContext
{
public static CommunityPrinciple Community
{
get
{
return (CommunityPrinciple)HttpContext.Current.User;
}
}
}
Now you can get the CommunityPrinciple as:-
var x = MySpecialContext.Community;
However it seems a lot of effort to got to avoid:-
var x = (CommunityPrinciple)Context.User;
An alternative would be an Extension method on HttpContext:-
public static class HttpContextExtensions
{
public static CommunityPrinciple GetCommunity(this HttpContext o)
{
return (CommunityPrinciple)o.User;
}
}
The use it:-
var x = Context.GetCommunity();
That's quite tidy but will require you to remember to include the namespace where the extensions class is defined in the using list in each file the needs it.
Edit:
Lets assume for the moment that you have some really good reason why even a cast performed inside called code as above is still unacceptable (BTW, I'd be really interested to understand what circumstance leads you to this conclusion).
Yet another alternative is a ThreadStatic field:-
public class MyModule : IHttpModule
{
[ThreadStatic]
private static CommunityPrinciple _threadCommunity;
public static CommunityPrinciple Community
{
get
{
return _threadCommunity;
}
}
// Place here your original module code but instead of (or as well as) assigning
// the Context.User store in _threadCommunity.
// Also at the appropriate point in the request lifecyle null the _threadCommunity
}
A field decorated with [ThreadStatic] will have one instance of storage per thread. Hence multiple threads can modify and read _threadCommunity but each will operate on their specific instance of the field.