I'm using Symfony's Validator Getter Component In conjunction with symfony forms.
In one of my entities files, I have:
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints as Assert;
class StudentPaper
{
.....
/**
* #Assert\IsTrue(message = "You must include a paper with your submission")
*/
public function hasPaper()
{
// I originally had logic that checked the validity, but just
// changed the return value to 'true' to prove that it's not working.
return true;
}
}
Unfortunately, the validation always fails (even when I hardcore the return value to be true). The validation code doesn't seem to be executed, and the form triggers the error. I even tried replacing it with IsFalse and hard coding false. Same result.
Anyone come across this?
Symfony 2.8.
PHP 5.6.15
Well, I can't fully explain what the actual problem is (because I don't know), but I did find a solution.
In my StudentPaper entity I had
/**
* Bidirectional - Student Papers have one file.
*
* #ORM\OneToOne(targetEntity="StudentPaperFile", inversedBy="student_paper", cascade={"persist", "remove"}, orphanRemoval=true)
* #ORM\JoinColumn()
* #Assert\Valid()
*/
protected $paper;
as a property. Turns out that having a property named paper AND a validation getter called hasPaper() was causing unexpected behavior. As soon as I changed the function name from hasPaper() to hasTesting() or hasSubmittedPaper then the getter worked as it was intended.
So the solution is that the getter function cannot be get/is/has + a mapped property name.
Related
I'm currently following a Symfony tutorial, and I've gotten to the part of Doctrine bidirectional relations (sorry if the terms I'm using are wrong, I'm not an native English speaker). My model is based on an Advert (One-To-Many) that displays an array of Applications (Many-To-One) made to this Advert. So an Application has to be linked to an Advert, hence the nullable false :
class Application
{
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity="App\Entity\Advert", inversedBy="applications")
* #ORM\JoinColumn(nullable=false)
*/
private $advert;
//
}
And I added an $applications attribute to my Advert class:
class Advert
{
/**
* #ORM\OneToMany(targetEntity="App\Entity\Application", mappedBy="advert")
*/
private $applications;
//
}
But when I use php bin/console make:entity --regenerate, to get the removeApplication() function, the code I'm getting is the following:
public function removeApplication(Application $application): self
{
if ($this->applications->contains($application)) {
$this->applications->removeElement($application);
// set the owning side to null (unless already changed)
if ($application->getAdvert() === $this) {
$application->setAdvert(null);
}
}
return $this;
}
The function sets the $advert of the Application to null while this attribute is explicitly set to nullable = false. I noticed this inconsistency because I'm using Symfony 4 whereas the tutorial I'm following is based on an older version, so the functions generated in the tutorial were much simpler and did not handle the $advert attribute.
Any idea why this is happening and if it might cause an error later in my project? Let me know if you need more pieces of code to understand the problem.
That really looks like a bug to me, they probably do not handle nullable cases inside of the generator.
Maybe try orphanRemoval on the Advert side of the relation, would be interesting what would happen then:
class Advert
{
/**
* #ORM\OneToMany(targetEntity="App\Entity\Application", mappedBy="advert", orphanRemoval=true)
*/
private $applications;
}
I have a Doctrine-Entity in my Symfony2-Project, which uses a custom Assert/Constraint to check, if a given date value is before and/or after a given date. This looks like the following simplified code:
In my entity class:
/**
* #var \DateTime
*
* #ORM\Column(name="entry_entered_at", type="date", nullable=true)
* #AppBundleAssert\DateRangeConstraint(max = "today")
*/
private $entryEnteredAt;
The relevant snippet of the corresponding DateRangeConstraint-class:
new \DateTime($this->max)
As you can see, I want to check, if a date is before today. The \DateTime-constructor is able to resolve this to a DateTime-object of today. Nice thing, works fine.
The problem
But it turns out, that Symfony2 caches all those Doctrine-annotations, so today is always resolved to the day, the cache was lastly cleared and my constraint produces nice form errors.
As a workaround for now, I clear the cache on a daily basis, but I need a better solution.
The question
So the question is, what would you suggest, how to implement such a dynamic assert/constraint in Symfony2?
I could implement the constraint inside the form, but it should be in the domain of the entity.
Edit:
I posted as answer and marked it as solution.
The solution and some answers
It turned out, that the built in Range validator is also able to validate a date-range. So I don't need my custom validator at all.
Digging a bit deeper into the built in Range constraint and the base Constraint class gives the reason, why the built in validators can use dynamic parameters like today, but not my incorrect implemented custom validator. The Constraint base class has a __sleep() method that just stores the object vars and its current values on serialization. Thus, when we don't reinitialize the object with a custom __wakeup() method, which would be a false workaround, we only get the cached parameters.
So besides the fact, that the builtin Range constraint already solves my problem, I simply should have done my dynamic new \DateTime($constraint->max) stuff inside the custom DateRangeConstraintValidator and not the cached custom DateRangeConstraint. Just have a look into Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\Range and Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\RangeValidator to see this in action.
Lessons learned
Your custom Constraint class will be serialized and cached and thus shouldn't do any dynamic things. Just validate the options and define the messages and stuff. Your dynamic validation things (and especially the initialization of dynamic parameters) must be done within your custom ConstraintValidator class.
I suggest you to look at Custom validator, especially Class Constraint Validator.
I won't copy paste the whole code, just the parts which you will have to change.
Extends the Constraint class.
src/Acme/DemoBundle/Validator/Constraints/CheckEntryEnteredAt.php
<?php
namespace Acme\DemoBundle\Validator\Constraints;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraint;
/**
* #Annotation
*/
class CheckEntryEnteredAt extends Constraint
{
public $message = 'Your error message.';
public function validatedBy()
{
return 'CheckEntryEnteredAtValidator';
}
public function getTargets()
{
return self::CLASS_CONSTRAINT;
}
}
Define the validator by extending the ConstraintValidator class, entryEnteredAt is the field you want to check:
src/Acme/DemoBundle/Validator/Constraints/CheckEntryEnteredAtValidator.php
namespace Acme\DemoBundle\Validator\Constraints;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraint;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\ConstraintValidator;
class CheckEntryEnteredAtValidator extends ConstraintValidator
{
public function validate($entity, Constraint $constraint)
{
$today = new \Datetime('today'); // = midnight
if ($entity->entryEnteredAt < $today) {
$this->context->addViolationAt('entryEnteredAt',
$constraint->message, array(), null);
}
}
}
Use the validator:
src/Acme/DemoBundle/Resources/config/validation.yml
Acme\DemoBundle\Entity\AcmeEntity:
constraints:
- Acme\DemoBundle\Validator\Constraints\CheckEntryEnteredAt: ~
(adapted from a previous answer)
public function __construct()
{
$this->entryEnteredAt = new \DateTime();
}
is something like that a solution for your use case? (on new YourEntity() you'll have a today date set for the entryEnteredAt property)
You could also use LifecycleCallbacks, here is an exemple with preUpdate (there is some more, like PrePersist):
on top of your class entity:
* #ORM\HasLifecycleCallbacks()
and
/**
* Set updatedAt
*
* #ORM\PreUpdate
*/
public function setUpdatedAt()
{
$this->updatedAt = new \DateTime();
}
I have 2 entities in a one-to-one association. The first, Person, is stored in a MySQL database and handled by Doctrine. The second, AdUserRecord, describes an ActiveDirectory user record. It is read-only. It does not need to know about Person. Also, AdUserRecord properties should never be stored in the MySQL db for privacy reasons.
An AdUserRecord is retrieved using a service, AdSearcher, which can search by samaccountname or objectGUID. Whenever a search is successful, the service checks to see if there is a corresponding Person record and creates one if there is not. That works fine.
My problem occurs when I start with a Person object. Mostly, I don't need to access a Person's AdUserRecord so I'd prefer not to query Active Directory unless it's required. That means, I think, that Person::getAdrecord() needs to have access to the AdSearcher service. Something like this:
public function getAdrecord(){
if($this->adrecord) return $this->adrecord;
$searcher = ???; //get AdSearcher service somehow
$record = $search->getRecordByUserGuid($this->ad_guid);
if(!$record) throw new \Exception('this person no longer exists');
$this->adrecord = $record;
return $this->adrecord;
}
I've been reading the Symfony docs pretty assiduously, but I'm still stumped.
Questions
how do I get a service into an entity? Should it be injected via the constructor, or just where it's needed, in the getter? If it only occurs in the getter, do I have to inject it or is there a way to import it?
is adding a service to an entity the canonical way of handling these types of situations? Would it be preferable to build an entity manager for AdUserRecords?
what interfaces do I need to implement if I have to build an entity manager?
Person class
namespace ACRD\DefaultBundle\Entity;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints as Assert;
use Doctrine\ORM\Mapping as ORM;
use Doctrine\Common\Collections\ArrayCollection;
use ACRD\DefaultBundle\Entity\AdUserRecord;
/**
* #ORM\Entity
* #Orm\Table(name="person")
*
*/
class Person {
/**
* #ORM\Id
* #ORM\Column(type="integer")
* #ORM\GeneratedValue(strategy="AUTO")
*/
protected $id;
/**
* #ORM\Column(name="AD_guid", type="string", length=36, unique=true)
*/
protected $ad_guid;
/**
* #var AdUserRecord
*/
protected $adrecord;
//usual getters and setters
}
It looks like Doctrine's postLoad event is the best solution.
// src/Acme/DemoBundle/EventListener/ActiveDirectorySubscriber.php
namespace Acme\DemoBundle\EventListener;
use Acme\DemoBundle\Model\AdAwareInterface;
use Doctrine\Common\EventSubscriber;
use Doctrine\ORM\Event\LifecycleEventArgs;
// for doctrine 2.4: Doctrine\Common\Persistence\Event\LifecycleEventArgs;
use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\ContainerAware
class ActiveDirectorySubscriber extends ContainerAware implements EventSubscriber
{
public function getSubscribedEvents()
{
return array(
'postLoad',
);
}
public function postLoad(LifecycleEventArgs $args)
{
$entity = $args->getEntity();
if (!($entity instanceof AdAwareInterface)) {
return:
}
$adSearcher = $this->getContainer()->get('acme_demo.ad_searcher');
if ($adPerson = $adSearcher->find($entity->getAdGuid())) {
$entity->setAdPerson($adPerson);
}
}
}
You also mentioned that most of the time you don't need to use the active directory stuff. Before optimizing I highly suggest you actually measure how much of a performance impact there is. If, however, you do notice a performance problem, consider using a proxy object to mitigate the AdPerson searching right to the point where you actually need something from it.
public function postLoad(LifecycleEventArgs $args)
{
$entity = $args->getEntity();
if (!($entity instanceof AdAwareInterface)) {
return:
}
$adSearcher = $this->getContainer()->get('acme_demo.ad_searcher');
$entity->setAdPerson(new AdPersonProxy($adSearcher));
}
The AdPersonProxy would basically extend from your AdPerson class, wrap each and every public method with a call to load the actual AdPerson object and then act as a facade between the two. Consider the following implications before you start coding though:
it adds complexity to your codebase (the more code, the more there is to maintain);
it will be a pain to debug - for example you might get an exception inside your
template that will leave you scratching your head for a long time (been there,
done that);
The bottom line is that in theory services should (mostly) not be injected inside entities.
Regarding your third question:
EntityManagers implement Doctrine/Common/Persistence/ObjectManager - have a look at the interface on github.
Further:
a somewhat clean implementation would be similar to the Document<->Entity mapping (called references) provided by gedmo/doctrine-extensions.
Take a glimpse at the documentation to see how it works here and here.
If that's what you want start diving into the code of the ReferenceListener :)
I have a tree of Employee objects (they are in a tree-like hierarchy, with everyone having one leader, and all leaders having more employees). All the Employees have a integer parameter called units.
/**
* #ORM\Entity
* #ORM\Table(name="employees")
*/
class Employee
{
/**
* #ORM\Id
* #ORM\Column(strategy="AUTO")
*/
protected $id;
/**
* #ORM\OneToMany(targetEntity="Employee", mappedBy="leader")
*/
protected $employees;
/**
* #ORM\ManyToOne(targetEntity("Employee", inversedBy="employees")
*/
protected $leader;
}
I need to get all the employees, who have at most N units, where N is defined in config.yml. At first, I was trying to push $configContainer into $GLOBALS, and use it in ArrayCollection::filter()'s Closure. Now I found a method, so I can use variables in the Closure:
public function getBestEmployees(&$configContainer)
{
return $this->getAllEmployees()->filter(
function bestEmployees($employee) use ($configContainer)
{
return ($employee->getUnits() >= $configContainer->getParameter('best_unit_count'));
}
);
}
Now I wonder if there is any other way to access the configuration parameters from an Entity, or do I really have to pass the whole configContainer as a reference? Or am I doing it totally wrong?
You shouldn't be accessing the service container at all inside entities. The value itself should be passed instead
public function getBestEmployees($bestUnitCount)
{
return $this->getAllEmployees()->filter(function ($employee) use ($bestUnitCount) {
return $employee->getUnits()->count() >= $bestUnitCount;
});
}
Of course, we haven't actually solved the problem yet: the parameter still needs to be fetched from the container somewhere. If this method gets invoked mostly in controller actions, I wouldn't bother doing any extra work to make things cleaner and would pass the container parameter straight in the controller action.
However, should there be a need to get the best employees in a Twig template, for example, it would be nice if it wouldn't be necessary to pass the parameter. One possibility would be using a setter method and passing the parameter down beforehand to each and every entity that gets retrieved from the database. You could do this either in repositories or entitiy managers. The most advanced solution would be to listen to the postLoad event and pass the parameter in an event listener.
I have the following Symfony controller:
/**
* Says thanks to the user for signing up.
*
* #Route("/thanks", name="user")
* #Template()
*/
public function thanksAction()
{
return $this->render('VNNPressboxBundle:User:thanks.html.twig');
}
If I don't include the return statement, I get an error saying the controller must return a response. It's interesting that I have to manually specify which template my action needs to use, considering Symfony could easily figure that out based on my controller and action. Plus that's how Symfony 1.x worked.
I have to imagine that I'm missing something. It doesn't seem like they would apply the convention over configuration concept in Symfony 1.x and then abandon it in Symfony >= 2.0.
Is it possible to tell Symfony to figure out which template to use based on my controller and action, and if so, how?
You have to return something. You're using #Template annotation so you don't have to render the response but you still have to return an array of parameters for the template (in your case empty):
use Sensio\Bundle\FrameworkExtraBundle\Configuration\Template;
/**
* Says thanks to the user for signing up.
*
* #Route("/thanks", name="user")
* #Template()
*/
public function thanksAction()
{
return array();
}
Read more on #Template annotation in the docs: http://symfony.com/doc/current/bundles/SensioFrameworkExtraBundle/annotations/view.html
P.S. Don't compare symfony 1.x to Symfony 2.x. These are two different frameworks. Symfony 2 favors being explicit over magic.
Return an array. In your case it'll be an empty array, but normally you would fill it with variables you want to pass to a template.