It's a bit tedious writing the whole path to the Entity when calling getRepository(). Especially in Symfony2 where it would be Acme\FooBundle\BarEntity. Is it possible to make it so you only have to specify the Entity name?
I'm adding a static method to my entities like this:
public static function getEntityName()
{
return get_called_class();
}
then
use Acme\FooBundle\BarEntity;
$repo = $em->getRepository(BarEntity::getEntityName());
You can write ->getRepository('FooBundle:BarEntity')
Related
As a newbie in Symfony2 & doctrine i'm struggling (in a custom repository class) with the difference between getEntityManager() and getManager().
I know getEntityManager() is being deprecated but if I use getManager() instead, I'm getting "Undefined method 'getManager'. The method name must start with either findBy or findOneBy!"
In my class, the following code works:
public function haalidop($verbid)
{
return $this->getEntityManager()
->createQuery('SELECT p FROM myBundle:Verbs p WHERE p.verbid='.$verbid)
->getSingleResult();
}
If I change (upgrade?) it like the code below, I get the error...
public function haalidop($verbid)
{
return $this->getManager()
->createQuery('SELECT p FROM myBundle:Verbs p WHERE p.verbid='.$verbid)
->getSingleResult();
}
Anyone any suggestion what's wrong here?
The getEntityManager method of the Registry is deprecated. Since you're in a Repository, you extended not the Registry but the EntityRepository. That class has only a getEntityManager method, which isn't deprecated.
The reason for this inconsistency is quite easy: The Registry is something that's used for other Doctrine library too, like their ODMs. They don't use the name "Entity", but "Document". For that reason, using getEntityManager didn't make much sense for ODMs, that's why they changed if to getManager.
On the other hand, the EntityRepository -as its name already tells us- is ORM specific, meaning there is no confusing for ODM users (they use another repository class).
The getEntityManager method is still valid in repositories as you can see in the current docs. It is deprecated in Controllers though and the getManager method should be used instead.
import { DataSource } from 'typeorm'
import { InjectDataSource } from "#nestjs/typeorm";
export class TenantsConsumer {
constructor(
#InjectDataSource() private readonly datasource : DataSource
){}
public async promote(tenant: Tenanats){
await this.datasource.query(
`CREATE SCHEMA IF NOT EXISTS "${tenant.db}"`
);
}
}
if in a controller:
$this->get('doctrine')->getManager();
if in a service:
$this->container->get('doctrine')->getManager();
I have a quite complex validate method in module1/actions.php called from module1/executeMyAction
I would like to reuse this in module2 rather than duplicate very similar code.
It feels like I should use a component or something like this but I don't need to call validate from a template I need to call it as part of the module1/executeMyAction or module2/executeMyAction so I can then set various variables for the executeMyActionSuccess.php template to handlle.
Can anyone let me know how I should reuse this validation code, I considered moving it into the form class but that just means I can't set the template variiables and it seems like it is breaking the MVC structure a bit so I'm not happy with that.
Would really appreciate any guidance.
If you want to share some parts of code between actions you can create a custom class which will implement some methods you need. You can put the class in the lib directory of either the application or the whole project.
E.g. create a apps/frontend/lib/myUtil.class.php
class myUtil
{
public static function addNumbers($a, $b)
{
return $a + $b;
}
}
Then in your action you can just use:
$sum = myUtil::addNumbers(2, 3);
If your code depends on some other objects it's best if you don't implement static methods but create an object of the class. E.g.
class myUtil
{
protected $request;
public function __construct(sfWebRequest $request)
{
$this->request = $request;
}
public function sumFromRequest()
{
return $this->request->getParameter('a') + $this->request->getParameter('b');
}
}
then in your action
public function executeSomething(sfWebRequest $request)
{
$util = new myUtil($request);
$this->sum = $util->sumFromRequest();
}
If your code is strictly used for validation of form fields you can create a custom validator which can be then used in your form. (which will definitely be the best solution). You can read about creating custom validators in the Symfony docs.
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);
Using FluentMigrator, the default creation of a Column using .AsString() results in an nvarchar(255). Is there a simple way (before I modify the FluentMigrator code) to create a column of type nvarchar(MAX)?
You could create an extension method to wrap .AsString(Int32.MaxValue) within .AsMaxString()
e.g.
internal static class MigratorExtensions
{
public static ICreateTableColumnOptionOrWithColumnSyntax AsMaxString(this ICreateTableColumnAsTypeSyntax createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax)
{
return createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax.AsString(int.MaxValue);
}
}
OK, I found it. Basically, use .AsString(Int32.MaxValue). Pity there's not a .AsMaxString() method, but I guess it's easy enough to put in...
You can use AsCustom("nvarchar(max)") and pack it to extension
If you often create columns/tables with the same settings or groups of columns, you should be creating extension methods for your migrations!
For example, nearly every one of my tables has CreatedAt and UpdatedAt DateTime columns, so I whipped up a little extension method so I can say:
Create.Table("Foos").
WithColumn("a").
WithTimestamps();
I think I created the Extension method properly ... I know it works, but FluentMigrator has a LOT of interfaces ... here it is:
public static class MigrationExtensions {
public static ICreateTableWithColumnSyntax WithTimestamps(this ICreateTableWithColumnSyntax root) {
return root.
WithColumn("CreatedAt").AsDateTime().NotNullable().
WithColumn("UpdatedAt").AsDateTime().NotNullable();
}
}
Similarly, nearly every one of my tables has an int primary key called 'Id', so I think I'm going to add Table.CreateWithId("Foos") to always add that Id for me. Not sure ... I actually just started using FluentMigrator today, but you should always be refactoring when possible!
NOTE: If you do make helper/extension methods for your migrations, you should never ever ever change what those methods do. If you do, someone could try running your migrations and things could explode because the helper methods you used to create Migration #1 works differently now than they did earlier.
Here is the code for creating columns incase it helps you create helper methods: https://github.com/schambers/fluentmigrator/blob/master/src/FluentMigrator/Builders/Create/Column/CreateColumnExpressionBuilder.cs
How about extending like this:
public static class StringMaxMigratorExtensions
{
public static ICreateTableColumnOptionOrWithColumnSyntax AsStringMax(this ICreateTableColumnAsTypeSyntax createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax)
{
return createTableColumnAsTypeSyntax.AsCustom("nvarchar(max)");
}
public static IAlterColumnOptionSyntax AsStringMax(this IAlterColumnAsTypeSyntax alterColumnAsTypeSyntax)
{
return alterColumnAsTypeSyntax.AsCustom("nvarchar(max)");
}
}
I am using a Cairngorm MVC architecture for my current project.
I have several commands which use the same type of function that returns a value. I would like to have this function in one place, and reuse it, rather than duplicate the code in each command. What is the best way to do this?
Create a static class or static method in one of your Cairngorm classes.
class MyStatic
{
public static function myFunction(value:String):String
{
return "Returning " + value;
}
}
Then where you want to use your function:
import MyStatic;
var str:String = MyStatic.myFunction("test");
Another option is to create a top level function (a la "trace"). Check out this post I wrote here.
You have lots of options here -- publicly defined functions in your model or controller, such as:
var mySharedFunction:Function = function():void
{
trace("foo");
}
... static methods on new or existing classes, etc. Best practice probably depends on what the function needs to do, though. Can you elaborate?
Create an abstract base class for your commands and add your function in the protected scope. If you need to reuse it anywhere else, refactor it into a public static method on a utility class.