Phalcon redirection and forwarding - phalcon

Do I understand correctly that after doing $this->dispatcher->forward() or $this->response->redirect() I need to manually ensure that the rest of the code does't get executed? Like below, or am I missing something?
public function signinAction()
{
if ($this->isUserAuthenticated())
{
$this->response->redirect('/profile');
return;
}
// Stuff if he isn't authenticated…
}

After almost a year of working on a hardcore project that uses Phalcon beyond its capacity, I wanted to clarify a few things and answer my own question. To understand how to properly do redirects and forwards you need to understand a little about how the Dispatcher::dispatch method works.
Take a look at the code here, though it's all C mumbo-jumbo to most of us, its really well written and documented. In the nutshell this is what it does:
The dispatcher enters the while loop until the _finished property becomes true or it discovers a recursion.
Inside the loop, it immediately sets that property to true, so when it starts the next iteration it will automatically break.
It then gets the controller / action information, which are originally supplied by the router in the application, and does various checks. Before and after that it also completes a lot of event-related business.
Finally it calls the action method in the controller and updates the _returnedValue property with (guess what!) the returned value.
If during the action call you call Dispatcher::forward method, it will update the _finished property back to false, which will allow the while loop to continue from the step 2 of this list.
So, after you do redirect or forward, you need to ensure that you code doesn't get executed only if that is part of the expected logic. In other words you don't have to return the result of return $this->response->redirect or return $this->dispatcher->forward.
Doing the last might seem convenient, but not very correct and might lead to problems. In 99.9% cases your controller should not return anything. The exception would be when you actually know what you are doing and want to change the behaviour of the rendering process in your application by returning the response object. On top of that your IDE might complain about inconsistent return statements.
To finalise, the correct way to redirect from within the controller:
// Calling redirect only sets the 30X response status. You also should
// disable the view to prevent the unnecessary rendering.
$this->response->redirect('/profile');
$this->view->disable();
// If you are in the middle of something, you probably don't want
// the rest of the code running.
return;
And to forward:
$this->dispatcher->forward(['action' => 'profile']);
// Again, exit if you don't need the rest of the logic.
return;

You need to use it like this:
return $this->response->redirect('/profile');
or
return $this->dispatcher->forward(array(
'action' => 'profile'
))

Use send() like this
public function signinAction()
{
if ($this->isUserAuthenticated())
{
return $this->response->redirect('profile')->send();
}
}

Related

Laravel scope not responding

I am using laravel for my backend api.
My question is about an scopefilter, the problem is that it is not responding when I call to it.
I have a lot of examples for using scopefilters.
So I looked at each of them to see if I did something wrong.
But I can't seem to find the problem.
When I call to this model in laravel, I use a parameter to define too the scopefilter to use a specific function.
The point only is that it never gets to this function, I don't get a response when I have put a log in this function.
I assume it is a syntax problem but maybe someone else can find the problem for this.
public static $scopeFilters = [
"supplierArticleClientId" => "bySupplierArticleClientId"
];
public function scopeBySupplierArticleClientId($query, $clientId) {
\Log::info([$clientId]);
}
In this case I expect that I see an clientId in my log.
You have to create a Custom validation function Implementing Rule Class
please go through this link for reference

Whats wrong with my code (GML)

ok so im sorry to be asking, however im trying to make it so that when i press z, a portal appears at my Spr_players coordinates, however if one of them already exists, i want it to be erased and im simply wondering what ive done wrong. Again sorry for bothering. (please note that i am a bad programmer and i appoligize if i broke any rules)
if object_exists(portal)
{
instance_destroy()
action_create_object(portal,Spr_player.x,Spr_player.y)
}
else
{
action_create_object(portal,Spr_player.x,Spr_player.y)
}
The instance_destroy() statement destroys the current self instance which is what is executing the code. You must use the with (<objectID>) {instance_destroy()} syntax to destroy another instance.
As long as there is only one instance of portal in the room this code should work:
if object_exists(portal)
{
with (portal) instance_destroy(); //you should also need a semicolon here to separate
//this statement from the next, it is good practice
//to do this after all statements as I have done.
action_create_object(portal,Spr_player.x,Spr_player.y);
}
else
{
action_create_object(portal,Spr_player.x,Spr_player.y);
}
If there are multiple instances of portal this will only destroy the first one. To destroy all you would have to use a for loop to iterate through them all. Off the top of my mind I can not remember the function to get the ids of all the instances of an object, but it looks like this is not a problem since each time one is created the existing one is destroyed and thus you will only have one a t a time.
Another way of doing this is just to move the existing portal to the new position. The only difference here is that the create event of the portal will not be executed and any alarms will not be reset.
portal.x=Spr_player.x
portal.y=Spr_player.y
Again this will only move the first portal if there are more than one.

Can I add a promise/unmaterialized record to a hasMany while I wait for it to be retrieved?

Back in the unversioned Ember Data days (e.g. "rev 12" maybe) I'm pretty sure you could do this:
var comment = App.Comment.find(42); // Already exists, but not yet loaded...
post.get('comments').addObject(comment);
Because App.Comment.find(42) would return an App.Comment object, albeit one with no fields populated except it's ID. (I don't remember the details of how you'd then save the App.Post--i.e. if you could or couldn't save it until the comment object was completely loaded…I never got that far.)
Why this was neat is that if your template rendered post.comments, a new row/div would appear immediately that could check isLoaded to display a loading indicator and show instantly that a new record was attached while waiting for the record's data to load. This is/was a selling point of Ember/Ember Data, and one I really like.
But this doesn't work now in 1.0.0-beta.2 beta.4 beta.5:
var comment = controller.get('store').find('comment', 42);
post.get('comments').addObject(comment); // Fails
Because controller.get('store').find('comment', 42) returns a promise, and if I try to add it to the hasMany it complains that I can only add App.Comment objects to the relationship.
Is it still possible to do something like this, so that my template which renders the comments immediately updates with a new record, but asynchronously populates its data?
(Please ignore that it doesn't make sense to add an already existing comment to a post--using the ubiquitous example scenario is easier than posting all my model code. Thanks!)
Okay, I came up with at least one way that does it:
var comment = controller.get('store').find('comment', 42);
var inFlightRecord = controller.get('store').getById('comment', 42);
controller.get('comments').addObject(inFlightRecord);
To be safer, maybe:
var comment = controller.get('store').find('comment', 42);
var inFlightRecord = controller.get('store').getById('comment', 42);
if(inFlightRecord){ // should be null if it isn't in the store
controller.get('comments').addObject(inFlightRecord);
} else {
// add a then block to the promise to make sure it gets added later
}
It seems that getById returns the "unloaded" object like we used to get from App.Comment.find(42), and the object still has an isLoaded property you can check to show loading status in your template.
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be supported behavior that I can rely on going forward (I suppose arguably nothing is, until 1.0 release), but it seems to work. I even checked that the object returned by getById === the object fulfilled in the promise. So this seems to be a good solution.
Anyone see a problem with this, or have a better way?

How can I access query string parameters for requests I've manually dispatched in Laravel 4?

I'm writing a simple API, and building a simple web application on top of this API.
Because I want to "consume my own API" directly, I first Googled and found this answer on StackOverflow which answers my initial question perfectly: Consuming my own Laravel API
Now, this works great, I'm able to access my API by doing something like:
$request = Request::create('/api/cars/'.$id, 'GET');
$instance = json_decode(Route::dispatch($request)->getContent());
This is great! But, my API also allows you to add an optional fields parameter to the GET query string to specify specific attributes that should be returned, such as this:
http://cars.com/api/cars/1?fields=id,color
Now the way I actually handle this in the API is something along the lines of this:
public function show(Car $car)
{
if(Input::has('fields'))
{
//Here I do some logic and basically return only fields requested
....
...
}
I would assume that I could do something similar as I did with the query string parameter-less approach before, something like this:
$request = Request::create('/api/cars/' . $id . '?fields=id,color', 'GET');
$instance = json_decode(Route::dispatch($request)->getContent());
BUT, it doesn't seem so. Long story short, after stepping through the code it seems that the Request object is correctly created (and it correctly pulls out the fields parameter and assigns id,color to it), and the Route seems to be dispatched OK, but within my API controller itself I do not know how to access the field parameter. Using Input::get('fields') (which is what I use for "normal" requests) returns nothing, and I'm fairly certain that's because the static Input is referencing or scoping to the initial request the came in, NOT the new request I dispatched "manually" from within the app itself.
So, my question is really how should I be doing this? Am I doing something wrong? Ideally I'd like to avoid doing anything ugly or special in my API controller, I'd like to be able to use Input::get for the internally dispatched requests and not have to make a second check , etc.
You are correct in that using Input is actually referencing the current request and not your newly created request. Your input will be available on the request instance itself that you instantiate with Request::create().
If you were using (as you should be) Illuminate\Http\Request to instantiate your request then you can use $request->input('key') or $request->query('key') to get parameters from the query string.
Now, the problem here is that you might not have your Illuminate\Http\Request instance available to you in the route. A solution here (so that you can continue using the Input facade) is to physically replace the input on the current request, then switch it back.
// Store the original input of the request and then replace the input with your request instances input.
$originalInput = Request::input();
Request::replace($request->input());
// Dispatch your request instance with the router.
$response = Route::dispatch($request);
// Replace the input again with the original request input.
Request::replace($originalInput);
This should work (in theory) and you should still be able to use your original request input before and after your internal API request is made.
I was also just facing this issue and thanks to Jason's great answers I was able to make it work.
Just wanted to add that I found out that the Route also needs to be replaced. Otherwise Route::currentRouteName() will return the dispatched route later in the script.
More details to this can be found on my blog post.
I also did some tests for the stacking issue and called internal API methods repeatedly from within each other with this approach. It worked out just fine! All requests and routes have been set correctly.
If you want to invoke an internal API and pass parameters via an array (instead of query string), you can do like this:
$request = Request::create("/api/cars", "GET", array(
"id" => $id,
"fields" => array("id","color")
));
$originalInput = Request::input();//backup original input
Request::replace($request->input());
$car = json_decode(Route::dispatch($request)->getContent());//invoke API
Request::replace($originalInput);//restore orginal input
Ref: Laravel : calling your own API

Yii framework urlManager rewrite rules

I have a url that looks like this:
<controller>/<action>/param/value
and I want it to like something like this:
param/value
How can it be achieved?
I tried this rule but not sure if it's ok (controller is account and action is index).
'user/<user:.*>' => 'account/index/user/test'
If I uderstand your question correctly, you want to handle URL's like this:
mysite.domain/user/username123
And call actionIndex in AccountController with param User, which (in this case) equals "username123"
In this case you can try the rule below:
'user/<user:.*>' => 'account/index/<user>'
But maybe you will need to change the declaration if your action:
function actionIndex($user){
// code
}
I would avoid putting params into action signatures as yii doens't go about processing actions with mismatching signatures [gracefully] at all... In fact, putting $user in will bind that action to always need a $user specified and if you ever decide to change your functionality, tracking down why your action isn't being called would be harder than determining why your $_GET isn't set... I would suggest in stead of adding the $user into the signature, just do something as follows in your action.
//will always run on /user/<USER:.*>
function actionIndex(){
$user = isset($_GET['user'])?$_GET['user']:NULL;
if(!is_null($user)){
//your user specific account action..
}else{
//handle your error gracefully..
}
}
This approach lets your action be more versatile. The URL rule should be as follows:
'user/<user:.*>' => 'account/index/user/<user>' //user is defined as a get...
Hope that helps && happy coding!