Paradigm; a nice word that means “a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about” (Merriam-Webster). In software development we have them too. From the philosophy and history of science courses I’ve followed, I remember that scientists working with different paradigms have great difficulty understanding each other, and appreciating each other’s work.

Paradigm Shifts

An example of a paradigm is the theory that the sun revolves around the earth. To a certain extent this is a fruitful theory, and it has been used for thousands of years. There’s of course another paradigm: the theory that the earth revolves around the sun. This is also a fruitful theory, and it can be used to explain a lot of observations, more than the previous theory. Still, people got angry with each other for moving the earth out of the center of the universe. Paradigm changes, or shifts, occur when the old theory has been stretched too much. It becomes impossible to hold on to it. Then some people start to experiment with a completely different paradigm, one that sounds totally weird, but in the end proves to have more power.

You say "convention over configuration;" I hear "ambient information stuck in someone's head." You say "configuration over hardcoding;" I hear "information in a different language that must be parsed, can be malformed, or not exist."

— Paul Snively (@paul_snively) March 2, 2019

Dependency injection is very important. Dependency injection containers are too. The trouble is with the tools, that let us define services in a meta-language, and rely on conventions to work well. This extra layer requires the “ambient information” Paul speaks about in his tweet, and easily lets us make mistakes that we wouldn’t make if we’d just write out the code for instantiating our services.

Statically fetching dependencies

I’ve worked with several code bases that were littered with calls to Zend_Registry::get(), sfContext::getInstance(), etc. to fetch a dependency when needed. I’m a little afraid to mention façades here, but they also belong in this list. The point of this article is not to bash a certain framework (they are all lovely), but to show how to get rid of these “centralized dependency managers” when you need to. The characteristics of these things are:

The problem

With a new bundle release you may want to rename services or parameters, make a service private, change some constructor arguments, change the structure of the bundle configuration, etc. Some of these changes may acually be backwards incompatible changes for the users of that bundle. Luckily, the Symfony DependenyInjection component and Config component both provide you with some options to prevent such backwards compatibility (BC) breaks. If you want to know more about backwards compatibility and bundle versioning, please read my previous article on this subject.

As you may have read on the Symfony blog: as of Symfony 2.4 you can register console commands using the service tag console.command.

What is the big deal, you would say. Well, let’s discover it now. This is how the documentation tells you to write your console commands:

namespace Matthias\ConsoleBundle\Command;

use Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Command\ContainerAwareCommand;
use Symfony\Component\Console\Input\InputInterface;
use Symfony\Component\Console\Output\OutputInterface;

class MyCommand extends ContainerAwareCommand
{
    protected function configure()
    {
        $this->setName('my:action');
    }

    protected function execute(InputInterface $input, OutputInterface $output)
    {
        // do something
    }
}

How to make sure your command will be noticed?

Until Symfony 2.4 there were two requirements for your command to be picked up by the console application itself:

Unit tests are tests on a micro-scale. When unit testing, you are testing little units of your code to make sure that, given a certain input, they produce the output you expected. When your unit of code makes calls to other objects, you can “mock” or “stub” these objects and verify that a method is called a specific number of times, or to make sure the unit of code you’re testing will receive the correct data from the other objects.

Below you will find the slides for my presentation about Dependency Injection Smells (see also one of my previous posts from which this idea originated). If you have any questions, or feedback, please let me know by posting a comment below (or on joind.in).

Dependency Injection Smells from matthiasnoback

This week is Dutch PHP Conference week! It is something I’m very excited about. Three years ago I attended this conference for the first time. It was also my first time to visit any (PHP) conference at all, and this is a big conference, with lots of speakers, lots of attendees and multiple tracks. The Dutch PHP Conference (DPC) has a certain grandeur - many large rooms, many famous developers speaking. It is an inspiring event. Visiting the conference back in 2010 lit a fire in me to start investigating anything there was to know about writing good code: reusable, clean code, with well named, short and testable methods, readable and maintainable by others. In other words, I started being critical of the code I produced.

The Symfony2 DependencyInjection Component has made my life and work as a developer a lot easier. Choosing the right way to use it however can be a bit difficult sometimes. Knowing what a/the service container can do, helps a lot, and also thinking about how you would do it with just PHP can put you back on track. To be able to recognize some problems related to dependency injection in your own code, I will describe a few “dependency injection smells” below (a term derived from “code smells”, used by Kent Beck, Martin Fowler and the likes).

The class Silex\Application extends \Pimple, a very lean dependency injection container, which itself implements \ArrayAccess. This allows you to define parameters and services and retrieve them from the Application like keys in an array. The first time I defined a service in a Silex application, in my case the Buzz Browser, I did it “inline”, i.e. inside my app.php file. This is how I did it:

use Buzz\Browser;

$app = new Silex\Application();

$app['autoloader']->registerNamespace('Buzz', __DIR__.'/vendor/buzz/lib');

$app['buzz.client_class'] = 'Buzz\\Client\\Curl';

$app['browser'] = $app->share(function() use ($app) {
    $clientClass = $app['buzz.client_class'];
    return new Browser(new $clientClass);
});

// $app['browser'] is ready for use

But this is not very reusable; every Silex application that needs Buzz\Browser as a service, needs to take care of the autoloading, configure and define the service. The Browser service is not such a very complex service, but think about everything that needs to be done to define and configure a service like the Doctrine DBAL (of course, Silex has a DoctrineServiceProvider for that already…).

Earlier I was looking for an alternative to Symfony1’s routing.load_configuration event, so I could add some extra routes on-the-fly. This may be useful, when routes change in more ways than only variable request parameters as part of routes do (you know, like /blog/{id}). I got it completely wrong in my previous post about this subject. Of course, adding extra routes is a matter of creating a custom routing loader, and tell the framework about it using the service container. So, there we go.

With Symfony2, many things are managed through dependency injection. Except for forms. Oh, wait, forms can be services too of course! Remember? Any class instance can be a service… Now, as in many other cases, Symfony2’s FrameworkBundle adds some magic to the Form component by creating services that link several parts of the Form component together. For example, depending on the value of the framework.csrf_protection parameter in config.yml file a hidden field “_token” will be added to all forms, site-wide. To create this kind of very general “form extension” in your own project, you need to do just a few things (I am going to use the example of a “Captcha” form extension, but I don’t give a full implementation of this idea).

One of the ugly things about Symfony 1 validators was that their dependencies were generally fetched from far away, mainly by calling sfContext::getInstance(). With Symfony2 and it’s service container, this isn’t necessary anymore. Validators can be services. The example below is quite simple, but given you can inject anything you want, you can make it quite complicated. I show you how to create a validator that checks with the router of the value-under-validation is a route.

After reading the Cookbook article How to expose a Semantic Configuration for a Bundle I became interested in the possibilities for defining a configuration tree using the TreeBuilder from the Symfony component Config. This TreeBuilderallows you to build a schema against which the configuration values (or short: config) from/app/config.yml` and the like are to be validated.

Create an Extension

First make sure that your bundle has a /DependencyInjection/[BundleNameWithoutBundle]Extension.php containing the extension class:

Sometimes you need to make changes to the Response object, after it is returned by your controller, but before it is rendered as output to the client (e.g. the browser). You may want to set some extra response headers, or “completely mess up the content” of the response. You can accomplish this by creating an event listener that listens to the kernel.response event. I give you a sample event listener which changes the Content-Type header in case the requested format is “json” and the browser’s accepted response format contains “text/html”; in that case, at least in my experience, the browser doesn’t render the JSON string as plain text when the status code is 4xx or 5xx. So in these situations, the event listener changes the “Content-Type” to “text/plain”, to be sure you always get decent output in the browser.

First of all: dependency injection is GREAT!

Several of Symfony2’s core services depend on tags to recognize which user-defined services should be loaded, notified of events, etc. For example, Twig uses the tag twig.extension to load extra extensions. It would also be great to use tags in case your service implements some kind of “chain”, in which several alternative strategies are tried until one of them is successful. In this post I use the example of a so-called “TransportChain”. This chain consists of a set of classes which implement the Swift_Transport interface. Using the chain, the mailer may try several ways of transport, until one succeeds. This post focuses on the “dependency injection” part of the story. The implementation of the real TransportChain is left to the reader (as an exercise ;)).