I want a variable bound to the application scope, (in java that would be application scope).
I thought service should be the thing to use in order to reach my goal.
I created a service test
<?php
namespace Acme\MyBundle\Service;
class test {
public $count;
public function __construct() {
$this->count = 0;
}
public function addCount() {
$this->count++;
}
}
which I declared in services.yml
acme.my.service.test:
class: Acme\MyBundle\Service\test
I call it in my controller
public function testAction() {
$this->get('acme.my.service.test')->addCount();
return $this->render('AcmeMyBundle:Test:test.html.twig');
}
But when I retrieve it in my twig, the value is 1, no matter how much I refresh or go with multiple session on the url bound to my testAction.
=> It means that constructor is called each time.
So is that the right way to do? I thought services were created once and reused then, but I may be mistaken.
Could you please enlighten me?
Thank you,
copndz
I found what I was looking for, APC caching system.
Easy to use and integrated to doctrine common.
How to cache in Symfony 2?
http://docs.doctrine-project.org/en/latest/reference/caching.html
Related
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 would like to use the PUT method for creating resources. They are identified by an UUID, and since it is possible to create UUIDs on the client side, I would like to enable the following behaviour:
on PUT /api/myresource/4dc6efae-1edd-4f46-b2fe-f00c968fd881 if this resource exists, update it
on PUT /api/myresource/4dc6efae-1edd-4f46-b2fe-f00c968fd881 if this resource does not exist, create it
It's possible to achieve this by implementing an ItemDataProviderInterface / RestrictedDataProviderInterface.
However, my resource is actually a subresource, so let's say I want to create a new Book which references an existing Author.
My constructor looks like this:
/**
* Book constructor
*/
public function __construct(Author $author, string $uuid) {
$this->author = $author;
$this->id = $uuid;
}
But I don't know how to access the Author entity (provided in the request body) from my BookItemProvider.
Any ideas?
In API Platform many things that should occur on item creation is based on the kind of request it is. It would be complicated to change.
Here are 2 possibilities to make what you want.
First, you may consider to do a custom route and use your own logic. If you do it you will probably be happy to know that using the option _api_resource_class on your custom route will enable some listeners of APIPlaform and avoid you some work.
The second solution, if you need global behavior for example, is to override API Platform. Your main problem for this is the ReadListener of ApiPlatform that will throw an exception if it can't found your resource. This code may not work but here is the idea of how to override this behavior:
class CustomReadListener
{
private $decoratedListener;
public function __construct($decoratedListener)
{
$this->decoratedListener = $decoratedListener;
}
public function onKernelRequest(GetResponseEvent $event)
{
try {
$this->decoratedListener->onKernelRequest($event);
} catch (NotFoundHttpException $e) {
// Don't forget to throw the exception if the http method isn't PUT
// else you're gonna break the 404 errors
$request = $event->getRequest();
if (Request::METHOD_PUT !== $request->getMethod()) {
throw $e;
}
// 2 solutions here:
// 1st is doing nothing except add the id inside request data
// so the deserializer listener will be able to build your object
// 2nd is to build the object, here is a possible implementation
// The resource class is stored in this property
$resourceClass = $request->attributes->get('_api_resource_class');
// You may want to use a factory? Do your magic.
$request->attributes->set('data', new $resourceClass());
}
}
}
And you need to specify a configuration to declare your class as service decorator:
services:
CustomReadListener:
decorate: api_platform.listener.request.read
arguments:
- "#CustomReadListener.inner"
Hope it helps. :)
More information:
Information about event dispatcher and kernel events: http://symfony.com/doc/current/components/event_dispatcher.html
ApiPlatform custom operation: https://api-platform.com/docs/core/operations#creating-custom-operations-and-controllers
Symfony service decoration: https://symfony.com/doc/current/service_container/service_decoration.html
I'm trying to implement the Identity system in an ASP.NET Core app (RC2 libraries) and there is a particular hangup that is driving me crazy.
First of all, I am not using EntityFramework. I'm not even using SQL. I'm backing up to RavenDB, so I need the implementation to be very specific to that; Which isn't a problem.
So I designed a RavenUserStore class, and it looks like this;
public class RavenUserStore<TUser> :
IUserStore<TUser>,
IUserLoginStore<TUser>,
IUserPasswordStore<TUser>,
IUserRoleStore<TUser>,
IUserSecurityStampStore<TUser>,
IUserClaimStore<TUser>,
IUserLockoutStore<TUser>,
IUserTwoFactorStore<TUser>,
IUserEmailStore<TUser> {
// ...
}
Works great on its own. I've implemented all the methods, etc. It's wonderful. Very clean and efficient.
Now, I go over to my web application and wire things up;
services.AddTransient<ILookupNormalizer>(s => new LowerInvariantLookupNormalizer());
services.AddTransient<IPasswordHasher<Member>>(s => new PasswordHasher<Member>());
services.AddTransient<IUserStore<Member>, RavenUserStore<Member>>();
services.AddIdentity<Member, Role>(o => {
o.Password.RequiredLength = 6;
o.Password.RequireDigit = true;
o.Password.RequireLowercase = false;
o.Password.RequireUppercase = false;
})
.AddUserStore<RavenUserStore<Member>>()
.AddRoleStore<RavenRoleStore<Role>>();
So I go make a controller to use this, per all the samples I've seen, and the very core sample from the Identity Framework Github Repository
//... [PROPERTIES]...//
public AccountController(UserManager<Member> userManager, SignInManager<Member> signInManager) {
// ... [attach constructor parameters to properties] ...//
}
Alright, so I inspect the classes carefully.
UserManager<T> has a property Store,which is a type of IUserStore<T>.
So theoretically.. if the dependency injection resolves types of IUserStore<T> to RavenUserStore<T> when they are injected through a constructor.. shouldn't that mean that the UserManager<T> gets a RavenUserStore<T> as its Store property?
I thought it would too; But when I call methods on the UserManager, it DOES NOT call the ones on my RavenUserStore. Why is this? What can I do?
Do I really have to ALSO make a custom UserManager class and do all of those methods AGAIN?
You need to add your own custom providers before calling services.AddIdentity(). Internally, AddIdentity uses TryAddScoped() which only adds the default items if they don't already exist in the services container.
So just putting the call to AddIdentity() after you registered all your custom implementations should mean that they will take precedence as you expect.
I'm struggling to find the correct way to unit test my symfony 2 services which use doctrine or other common services.
What i have done so far:
In my understanding the controller actions should:
be as short as possible
take the request
execute required methods from injected services
build a response out of this
is a service itself
To accomplish a lightweight action, i try to encapsule the logic into a separate service which gets injected into the controller.
This works nicely expect for testing everything.
Here my current code:
Controller
class SearchController
{
// search_helper, request and templating are controller-injected
protected $search_helper;
protected $request;
protected $templating;
// ...
public function searchAction()
{
$searchterm = strtolower($this->request->query->get('q'));
$result = $this->search_helper->findSamples($searchterm);
// Found a single result. Redirect to this page
if (is_string($result))
{
return new RedirectResponse($result, 301);
}
return new Response($this->templating->render('AlbiSampleBundle:Search:index.html.twig', array('results' => $result)));
}
}
SearchService
class SearchHelper
{
// doctrine, session and min_query_len are controller-injected
protected $doctrine;
protected $session;
protected $min_query_len;
// ...
public function findSamples($searchterm)
{
if (strlen($searchterm) < $this->min_query_len)
{
$msg = 'Your search must contain at least 3 characters!';
$this->session->getFlashBag()->add('error', $msg);
return false;
}
$em = $this->doctrine->getManager();
$results = $em->getRepository('AlbiSampleBundle:Sample')->findPossibleSamples($searchterm);
// Execute a more advanced search, if std. search don't delivers a result
// ...
return $results;
}
}
How can i test this code correctly?
The repository is tested with phpunit_db and a inmemory sqlite database ✓
The action can be tested through a simple functional test ✓
What's left is the logic in the search-service. e.g. the findSamples method
My first thought was to mock the dependencies (in fact that was one of the main aspects in separating the dependencies), but you not only have to mock the doctrine object, but also the entitymanager and the repository.
$em = $this->doctrine->getManager();
$results = $em->getRepository('AlbiSampleBundle:Sample')->findPossibleSamples($searchterm);
I think there must be a better solution. Not only would this mocking need many LOCs, it also doesn't feel right. The test would be unnecessarily coupled really tight to the SUT.
EDIT
Here is a sample test i came up with. Using mock objects.
The test won't work. I realized it would take much more mock-objects and i got the feeling this isn't the right way.
The test fails because SessionMock->getFlashbag doesn't return a flashbag with add method.
doctrine->getManager returns no EntityManager. The EntityManager has no getRepository method. And the repository is missing findPossibleSamples.
class SearchHelperTest extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
private $router;
private $session;
private $doctrine;
public function setUp()
{
parent::setUp();
// ...
}
public function testSearchReturnValue()
{
$search_service = $this->createSearchHelper();
$this->assertFalse($search_service->findSamples('s'));
}
protected function createSearchHelper()
{
return new SearchHelper($this->doctrine, $this->router, $this->session, 3);
}
protected function getDoctrineMock()
{
return $this->getMock('Doctrine\Bundle\DoctrineBundle\Registry', array('getManager'), array(), '', false);
}
protected function getSessionMock()
{
return $this->getMock('Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Session\Session', array('getFlashBag'), array(), '', false);
}
protected function getRouterMock()
{
return $this->getMock('Symfony\Component\Routing\Router', array('generate'), array(), '', false);
}
}
Hope the community can help me, writing well tested code :)
cheers
For your specific example I would argue that the validation of the $searchterm doesn't really belong in your service - at the very least a service should never depend on the session. There are ways you could move the session out of the service and leave the validation in but personally I would use symfony validation for this i.e. have a SampleSearchType for the form that uses itself as the data class and hang the validation off that in validation.yml (or using annotations as appropriate).
Once that validation is taken out, what's left from your question is another findX() method to be added to the repository (there's no reason why repository methods can't call and build on each other) which you already know how to test.
Having said that, I still agree that with Symfony there is a general issue of how to test services in isolation from injected services. With respect to testing in isolation from the persistence layer I've avoiding trying to do this so far. My business layer services are so tightly coupled with the persistence layer that the cost of trying to test them independently is not worthwhile (what logic there is consists mainly of making related db updates or sending emails for which symfony provides it's own decoupling mechanism). I'm not sure if this is because I'm doing it wrong or because the apps I'm working on are light on business logic!
To isolate service tests from dependencies other than persistence I've tried:
Overriding service classes with mocked versions in the configuration. Issue - you don't want to do this for functional tests which means you have to have tests scripts which update the configuration and/or change the config to run individual tests. Advantage - you can run the same test as an isolated unit test and as an integration test by flipping the config
(Warning: nasty hack!) providing a setter method to replace an injected service with a mocked version from the test program.
(Not yet tried) Directly instantiate the service being tested, passing mock dependencies in on construction.
With respect to isolating from the persistence layer the only approach that makes sense to me is to abstract it out of the service to be tested into a wrapper service which contains no additional logic. The wrapper service could then be mocked using one of the above approaches (or hopefully a better solution that someone else is going to suggest?!)
EDIT: to address the issue of complexity of mocking dependencies - very occasionally this may be unavoidable but in general this is an indication that the design needs revisiting. This is one of the strengths of TDD - it strongly encourages simplified design and decoupling of components:
No service should need to be dependent upon the session object. This is not good practice and can always be avoided. Worst case the example method could return mixed values and if the result is not an array it's assumed to be an error message, although there are better alternatives.
Sometimes dependencies are unnecessary (code more naturally belongs elsewhere) or too general (I would question the necessity of injecting high level objects like doctrine or e.g. the container into anything other than test helpers).
If there is a complex dependency to mock (such as on multiple classes from the persistence layer) abstract it out into a wrapper which is far simpler to mock than the complex dependency.
Does anyone have a good way to unit test an entity's validation constraints in Symfony2?
Ideally I want to have access to the Dependency Injection Container within the unit test which would then give me access to the validator service. Once I have the validator service I can run it manually:
$errors = $validator->validate($entity);
I could extend WebTestCase and then create a client to get to the container as per the docs however it doesn't feel right. The WebTestCase and client read in the docs as more of a facility to test actions as a whole and therefore it feels broken to use it to unit test an entity.
So, does anyone know how to either a) get the container or b) create the validator inside a unit test?
Ok since this got two votes I guess other people are interested.
I decided to get my shovel out and was pleasantly surprised (so far anyway) that this wasn't at all difficult to pull off.
I remembered that each Symfony2 component can be used in a stand alone mode and therefore that I could create the validator myself.
Looking at the docs at: https://github.com/symfony/Validator/blob/master/ValidatorFactory.php
I realised that since there was a ValidatorFactory it was trivial to create a validator (especially for validation done by annotations which I am, although if you look at the docblock on the page I linked above you'll also find ways to validate xml and yml).
First:
# Symfony >=2.1
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Validation;
# Symfony <2.1
use Symfony\Component\Validator\ValidatorFactory;
and then:
# Symfony >=2.1
$validator = Validation::createValidatorBuilder()->enableAnnotationMapping()->getValidator();
# Symfony <2.1
$validator = ValidatorFactory::buildDefault()->getValidator();
$errors = $validator->validate($entity);
$this->assertEquals(0, count($errors));
I hope this helps anyone else whose conscience wouldn't allow them to just use WebTestCase ;).
We end up rolling your own base test case to access the dependency container from within a test case. Here the class in question:
<?php
namespace Application\AcmeBundle\Tests;
// This assumes that this class file is located at:
// src/Application/AcmeBundle/Tests/ContainerAwareUnitTestCase.php
// with Symfony 2.0 Standard Edition layout. You may need to change it
// to fit your own file system mapping.
require_once __DIR__.'/../../../../app/AppKernel.php';
class ContainerAwareUnitTestCase extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
protected static $kernel;
protected static $container;
public static function setUpBeforeClass()
{
self::$kernel = new \AppKernel('dev', true);
self::$kernel->boot();
self::$container = self::$kernel->getContainer();
}
public function get($serviceId)
{
return self::$kernel->getContainer()->get($serviceId);
}
}
With this base class, you can now do this in your test methods to access the validator service:
$validator = $this->get('validator');
We decided to go with a static function instead of the class constructor but you could easily change the behavior to instantiate the kernel into the constructor directly instead of relying on the static method setUpBeforeClass provided by PHPUnit.
Also, keep in mind that each single test method in you test case won't be isolated fro, each others because the container is shared for the whole test case. Making modification to the container may have impact on you other test method but this should not be the case if you access only the validator service. However, this way, the test cases will run faster because you will not need to instantiate and boot a new kernel for each test methods.
For the sake of reference, we find inspiration for this class from this blog post. It is written in French but I prefer to give credit to whom it belongs :)
Regards,
Matt
I liked Kasheens answer, but it doesn't work for Symfony 2.3 anymore.
There are little changes:
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Validation;
and
$validator = Validation::createValidatorBuilder()->getValidator();
If you want to validate Annotations for instance, use enableAnnotationMapping() like below:
$validator = Validation::createValidatorBuilder()->enableAnnotationMapping()->getValidator();
the rest stays the same:
$errors = $validator->validate($entity);
$this->assertEquals(0, count($errors));
With Symfony 2.8, it seems that you can now use the AbstractConstraintValidatorTest class this way :
<?php
namespace AppBundle\Tests\Constraints;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Tests\Constraints\AbstractConstraintValidatorTest;
use AppBundle\Constraints\MyConstraint;
use AppBundle\Constraints\MyConstraintValidator;
use AppBundle\Entity\MyEntity;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Validation;
class MyConstraintValidatorTest extends AbstractConstraintValidatorTest
{
protected function getApiVersion()
{
return Validation::API_VERSION_2_5;
}
protected function createValidator()
{
return new MyConstraintValidator();
}
public function testIsValid()
{
$this->validator->validate(null, new MyEntity());
$this->assertNoViolation();
}
public function testNotValid()
{
$this->assertViolationRaised(new MyEntity(), MyConstraint::SOME_ERROR_NAME);
}
}
You have got a good sample with the IpValidatorTest class
The answer in https://stackoverflow.com/a/41884661/4560833 has to be changed a little for Symfony 4:
Use ConstraintValidatorTestCase instead of AbstractConstraintValidatorTest.
Answer (b): Create the Validator inside the Unit Test (Symfony 2.0)
If you built a Constraint and a ConstraintValidator you don't need any DI container at all.
Say for example you want to test the Type constraint from Symfony and it's TypeValidator. You can simply do the following:
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\TypeValidator;
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\Type;
class TypeValidatorTest extends \PHPUnit_Framework_TestCase
{
function testIsValid()
{
// The Validator class.
$v = new TypeValidator();
// Call the isValid() method directly and pass a
// configured Type Constraint object (options
// are passed in an associative array).
$this->assertTrue($v->isValid(5, new Type(array('type' => 'integer'))));
$this->assertFalse($v->isValid(5, new Type(array('type' => 'string'))));
}
}
With this you can check every validator you like with any constraint configuration. You neither need the ValidatorFactory nor the Symfony kernel.
Update: As #psylosss pointed out, this doesn't work in Symfony 2.5. Nor does it work in Symfony >= 2.1. The interface from ConstraintValidator got changed: isValid was renamed to validate and doesn't return a boolean anymore. Now you need an ExecutionContextInterface to initialize a ConstraintValidator which itself needs at least a GlobalExecutionContextInterface and a TranslatorInterface... So basically it's not possible anymore without way too much work.
I don't see a problem with the WebTestCase. If you don't want a client, don't create one ;) But using a possibly different service than your actual application will use, that's a potential pit fall. So personally, I've done like this:
class ProductServiceTest extends Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Test\WebTestCase
{
/**
* Setup the kernel.
*
* #return null
*/
public function setUp()
{
$kernel = self::getKernelClass();
self::$kernel = new $kernel('dev', true);
self::$kernel->boot();
}
public function testFoo(){
$em = self::$kernel->getContainer()->get('doctrine.orm.entity_manager');
$v = self::$kernel->getContainer()->get('validator');
// ...
}
}
It's less DRY than Matt answer -- as you'll repeat the code (for each test class) and boot the kernel often (for each test method), but it's self-contained and require no extra dependencies, so it depends on your needs. Plus I got rid of the static require.
Also, you're sure to have the same services that your application is using -- not default or mock, as you boot the kernel in the environnement that you wish to test.
If people still read this one in 2023, prefer to inject the ValidatorInterface for Symfony > 3 / 4.
use Symfony\Component\Validator\Validator\ValidatorInterface;
// ...
$this->validator->validate($myEntity);