Managing relationships in Laravel, adhering to the repository pattern - oop

While creating an app in Laravel 4 after reading T. Otwell's book on good design patterns in Laravel I found myself creating repositories for every table on the application.
I ended up with the following table structure:
Students: id, name
Courses: id, name, teacher_id
Teachers: id, name
Assignments: id, name, course_id
Scores (acts as a pivot between students and assignments): student_id, assignment_id, scores
I have repository classes with find, create, update and delete methods for all of these tables. Each repository has an Eloquent model which interacts with the database. Relationships are defined in the model per Laravel's documentation: http://laravel.com/docs/eloquent#relationships.
When creating a new course, all I do is calling the create method on the Course Repository. That course has assignments, so when creating one, I also want to create an entry in the score's table for each student in the course. I do this through the Assignment Repository. This implies the assignment repository communicates with two Eloquent models, with the Assignment and Student model.
My question is: as this app will probably grow in size and more relationships will be introduced, is it good practice to communicate with different Eloquent models in repositories or should this be done using other repositories instead (I mean calling other repositories from the Assignment repository) or should it be done in the Eloquent models all together?
Also, is it good practice to use the scores table as a pivot between assignments and students or should it be done somewhere else?

I am finishing up a large project using Laravel 4 and had to answer all of the questions you are asking right now. After reading all of the available Laravel books over at Leanpub, and tons of Googling, I came up with the following structure.
One Eloquent Model class per datable table
One Repository class per Eloquent Model
A Service class that may communicate between multiple Repository classes.
So let's say I'm building a movie database. I would have at least the following following Eloquent Model classes:
Movie
Studio
Director
Actor
Review
A repository class would encapsulate each Eloquent Model class and be responsible for CRUD operations on the database. The repository classes might look like this:
MovieRepository
StudioRepository
DirectorRepository
ActorRepository
ReviewRepository
Each repository class would extend a BaseRepository class which implements the following interface:
interface BaseRepositoryInterface
{
public function errors();
public function all(array $related = null);
public function get($id, array $related = null);
public function getWhere($column, $value, array $related = null);
public function getRecent($limit, array $related = null);
public function create(array $data);
public function update(array $data);
public function delete($id);
public function deleteWhere($column, $value);
}
A Service class is used to glue multiple repositories together and contains the real "business logic" of the application. Controllers only communicate with Service classes for Create, Update and Delete actions.
So when I want to create a new Movie record in the database, my MovieController class might have the following methods:
public function __construct(MovieRepositoryInterface $movieRepository, MovieServiceInterface $movieService)
{
$this->movieRepository = $movieRepository;
$this->movieService = $movieService;
}
public function postCreate()
{
if( ! $this->movieService->create(Input::all()))
{
return Redirect::back()->withErrors($this->movieService->errors())->withInput();
}
// New movie was saved successfully. Do whatever you need to do here.
}
It's up to you to determine how you POST data to your controllers, but let's say the data returned by Input::all() in the postCreate() method looks something like this:
$data = array(
'movie' => array(
'title' => 'Iron Eagle',
'year' => '1986',
'synopsis' => 'When Doug\'s father, an Air Force Pilot, is shot down by MiGs belonging to a radical Middle Eastern state, no one seems able to get him out. Doug finds Chappy, an Air Force Colonel who is intrigued by the idea of sending in two fighters piloted by himself and Doug to rescue Doug\'s father after bombing the MiG base.'
),
'actors' => array(
0 => 'Louis Gossett Jr.',
1 => 'Jason Gedrick',
2 => 'Larry B. Scott'
),
'director' => 'Sidney J. Furie',
'studio' => 'TriStar Pictures'
)
Since the MovieRepository shouldn't know how to create Actor, Director or Studio records in the database, we'll use our MovieService class, which might look something like this:
public function __construct(MovieRepositoryInterface $movieRepository, ActorRepositoryInterface $actorRepository, DirectorRepositoryInterface $directorRepository, StudioRepositoryInterface $studioRepository)
{
$this->movieRepository = $movieRepository;
$this->actorRepository = $actorRepository;
$this->directorRepository = $directorRepository;
$this->studioRepository = $studioRepository;
}
public function create(array $input)
{
$movieData = $input['movie'];
$actorsData = $input['actors'];
$directorData = $input['director'];
$studioData = $input['studio'];
// In a more complete example you would probably want to implement database transactions and perform input validation using the Laravel Validator class here.
// Create the new movie record
$movie = $this->movieRepository->create($movieData);
// Create the new actor records and associate them with the movie record
foreach($actors as $actor)
{
$actorModel = $this->actorRepository->create($actor);
$movie->actors()->save($actorModel);
}
// Create the director record and associate it with the movie record
$director = $this->directorRepository->create($directorData);
$director->movies()->associate($movie);
// Create the studio record and associate it with the movie record
$studio = $this->studioRepository->create($studioData);
$studio->movies()->associate($movie);
// Assume everything worked. In the real world you'll need to implement checks.
return true;
}
So what we're left with is a nice, sensible separation of concerns. Repositories are only aware of the Eloquent model they insert and retrieve from the database. Controllers don't care about repositories, they just hand off the data they collect from the user and pass it to the appropriate service. The service doesn't care how the data it receives is saved to the database, it just hands off the relevant data it was given by the controller to the appropriate repositories.

Keep in mind you're asking for opinions :D
Here's mine:
TL;DR: Yes, that's fine.
You're doing fine!
I do exactly what you are doing often and find it works great.
I often, however, organize repositories around business logic instead of having a repo-per-table. This is useful as it's a point of view centered around how your application should solve your "business problem".
A Course is a "entity", with attributes (title, id, etc) and even other entities (Assignments, which have their own attributes and possibly entities).
Your "Course" repository should be able to return a Course and the Courses' attributes/Assignments (including Assignment).
You can accomplish that with Eloquent, luckily.
(I often end up with a repository per table, but some repositories are used much more than others, and so have many more methods. Your "courses" repository may be much more full-featured than your Assignments repository, for instance, if your application centers more around Courses and less about a Courses' collection of Assignments).
The tricky part
I often use repositories inside of my repositories in order to do some database actions.
Any repository which implements Eloquent in order to handle data will likely return Eloquent models. In that light, it's fine if your Course model uses built-in relationships in order to retrieve or save Assignments (or any other use case). Our "implementation" is built around Eloquent.
From a practical point of view, this makes sense. We're unlikely to change data sources to something Eloquent can't handle (to a non-sql data source).
ORMS
The trickiest part of this setup, for me at least, is determing if Eloquent is actually helping or harming us. ORMs are a tricky subject, because while they help us greatly from a practical point of view, they also couple your "business logic entities" code with the code doing the data retrieval.
This sort of muddles up whether your repository's responsibility is actually for handling data or handling the retrieval / update of entities (business domain entities).
Furthermore, they act as the very objects you pass to your views. If you later have to get away from using Eloquent models in a repository, you'll need to make sure the variables passed to your views behave in the same way or have the same methods available, otherwise changing your data sources will roll into changing your views, and you've (partially) lost the purpose of abstracting your logic out to repositories in the first place - the maintainability of your project goes down as.
Anyway, these are somewhat incomplete thoughts. They are, as stated, merely my opinion, which happens to be the result of reading Domain Driven Design and watching videos like "uncle bob's" keynote at Ruby Midwest within the last year.

I like to think of it in terms of what my code is doing and what it is responsible for, rather than "right or wrong". This is how I break apart my responsibilities:
Controllers are the HTTP layer and route requests through to the underlying apis (aka, it controls the flow)
Models represent the database schema, and tell the application what the data looks like, what relationships it may have, as well as any global attributes that may be necessary (such as a name method for returning a concatenated first and last name)
Repositories represent the more complex queries and interactions with the models (I don't do any queries on model methods).
Search engines - classes that help me build complex search queries.
With this in mind, it makes sense every time to use a repository (whether you create interfaces.etc. is a whole other topic). I like this approach, because it means I know exactly where to go when I'm needing to do certain work.
I also tend to build a base repository, usually an abstract class which defines the main defaults - basically CRUD operations, and then each child can just extend and add methods as necessary, or overload the defaults. Injecting your model also helps this pattern to be quite robust.

Think of Repositories as a consistent filing cabinet of your data (not just your ORMs). The idea is that you want to grab data in a consistent simple to use API.
If you find yourself just doing Model::all(), Model::find(), Model::create() you probably won't benefit much from abstracting away a repository. On the other hand, if you want to do a bit more business logic to your queries or actions, you may want to create a repository to make an easier to use API for dealing with data.
I think you were asking if a repository would be the best way to deal with some of the more verbose syntax required to connect related models. Depending on the situation, there are a few things I may do:
Hanging a new child model off of a parent model (one-one or one-many), I would add a method to the child repository something like createWithParent($attributes, $parentModelInstance) and this would just add the $parentModelInstance->id into the parent_id field of the attributes and call create.
Attaching a many-many relationship, I actually create functions on the models so that I can run $instance->attachChild($childInstance). Note that this requires existing elements on both side.
Creating related models in one run, I create something that I call a Gateway (it may be a bit off from Fowler's definitions). Way I can call $gateway->createParentAndChild($parentAttributes, $childAttributes) instead of a bunch of logic that may change or that would complicate the logic that I have in a controller or command.

Related

Laravel factories slowing down testing due to nested relationships

For context, I'm working on a RNG-based motorsport simulator, for lack of a better term. Users can create universes (think FIA in real life terms), in a universe they can create series (think F1, F2, F3 etc) and in each series they can create seasons. In each of these, users can create additional models;
In a universe, a user can create teams and drivers.
In a season, a user can create a calendar using circuits they've added outside any universe, entrants (based on teams they've created in the parent universe) and to these entrants they can add drivers (based on drivers created), which I called "lineups".
The deeper I go with testing these relationships, the more models I need to create through factories to be able to test properly, and the longer it takes for a test to run. I've got a pretty simple test to verify a universe owner can add a driver to an entrant belonging to that universe;
test('a universe owner can add drivers to entrants', function () {
$user = User::factory()->create();
$season = createSeasonForUser($user);
$driver = Driver::factory()->for($season->universe)->create();
$entrant = Entrant::factory()->for($season)->create();
$this->actingAs($user)
->post(route('seasons.lineups.store', [$season]), [
'driver_id' => $driver->id,
'entrant_id' => $entrant->id,
'number' => 2,
])
->assertRedirect(route('seasons.lineups.index', [$season]));
$this->assertDatabaseCount('lineups', 1);
$this->assertCount(1, $entrant->drivers);
$this->assertCount(1, $season->drivers);
});
I've got two helper functions to quickly create a series and/or season belonging to a specific user;
function createSeriesForUser(User $user): Series
{
return Series::factory()->for(Universe::factory()->for($user)->create())->create();
}
function createSeasonForUser(User $user): Season
{
$series = createSeriesForUser($user);
return Season::factory()->for($series)->create();
}
As you can see, to test one part of the process, I need to create six models through factories (with some of these factories sometimes calling more factories). I ran the tests five times, timing each part of the test (factories, the actual request, and the assertions), and the factories take up 1,9 seconds on average, with the rest of the tests taking up 0,015 seconds, which doesn't seem right to me.
Ideally I'd create all required database entries before each test file is run, but I've understood this is bad practice. Is there another way to speed up the tests? Sadly I can't make the relationships less nested or complicated, since these are simply the requirement of the website I'm building.
Alternatively, is this approach in general even the right way to test my controller's functionality, or can it be done differently?
To not clutter up the question too much, here's a pastebin with all current factories
Turns out Faker's image() is really slow. I replaced the 'avatar' => $this->faker->image(), in my UserFactory with 'avatar' => null,, and my entire test suit now runs in barely over three seconds, or a second if I run them in parallel.

Design a RESTful API in Laravel 5.2, using a resource that conceptually can contain other resources

First of all I am really not very familiar with the REST practice, and I am not very confident about the title of my question.
So I am trying to built a RESTful API using Laravel for a phonebook application. The phonebook may contain telephones of either employees (i.e real persons) or offices. For that reason I have three models
a Directorate with id and name fields,
an Employee with id and name fields and
a Telephone with id, tel, employee_id, directorate_id, description and type fields.
Telephones corresponding to a directorate's office have only the id, tel, directorate_id and description fields set, while the telephones corresponding to a person (i.e an employee) have set only the id, tel, employee_id, directorate_id, and type fields. That is how I separate them: a telephone having a description can only be an office's telephone, while a telephone having both the employee_id and the type_id set is an employee's telephone.
The models are related as follows:
an employee may have many telephones
a directorate, may have many telephones
class Directorate extends Model
{
public function telephones()
{
return $this->hasMany(Telephone::class);
}
public function employees()
{
return $this->hasMany(Employee::class);
}
}
class Employee extends Model
{
public function telephones()
{
return $this->hasMany(Telephone::class);
}
public function directorate()
{
return $this->belongTo(Directorate::class);
}
}
class Telephone extends Model
{
public function employee()
{
return $this->belongsTo(Employee::class);
}
}
My question is what should I a consider as my resource.
So far I am thinking of the following approach:
I shall use the concept of contact as resource. A contact may be the joined information of either an employee and a telephone, or a directorate and a telephone. For instance, a "contact" may contain the name of an employee with his related telephone numbers and telephone types, or it can contain the name of a directorate with the description of the telephone and the telephone number.
The "problem" with this approach is that I have ended up with (let's put it this way) two different types of resource: the employee's contacts and the directorate office's contacts, which contain slightly different information and thus, I need also to have different create and edit forms to interact with these two "types" of resources.
In order to implement the REST API, I am thinking of two different scenarios:
Use two different RESTful controllers, one EmployeeContacts and another OfficesContacts for separating conceptually the resource to an employee's and an office's resource, and accessing them through different URIs like:
example.com/phonebook/employees/{id}/edit
example.com/phonebook/offices/{id}/edit
example.com/phonebook/employees/create
etc...
Use a single RESTful controller, e.g. PhonebookContacts to access the resources through the same URIs as one resource (i.e. both employee's and office's contact resources now are considered to be just a "contact" resource)
//this refers to a contact resource that can be either an office's or a n employee's contact
example.com/phonebook/contact/{id}/edit
//this should list all resources (both employees and offices contacts)
example.com/phonebook/contact/
and then use conditional statements in the controller's create/store/edit/update methods to deal with them separately (e.g if an http POST request contains a description_id then it is an office contact and do this, or else if has an employee_id then it is an employee's contact so do that...)
I would like to hear your views, what of these two different scenarios do you consider to be better in the context of REST for my phonebook app? Would be better to think of a single "contact" resource and handle it using conditional statements with different return in the controller, or shall I separate the concept of "contact" to "employee's contact" and "office's contact" and use separate controllers and URI's to handle them?
Is there another approach that I could follow instead?
The way I would do it is with 2 different controllers for the simple reason of speed and responsiveness. Loading all contacts and filtering isn't as quick as loading the one part only.
However, you can always set in your controller the same return with different data. Such as EmployeeController#index returns view('contacts.index', compact('employeeContacts')), and OfficesController#index returns view('contacts.index', compact('officesContacts'))
EDIT:
Sorry, I have misread it...I thought you wanted to do the filtering in the view. Anyway, my practice is to do it separately, simply because the code is cleaner. If you want to make the whole REST more readable, you can put both resources in a group like so: Route::group(['prefix' => 'contact'], function(){ //routes here// });
So now you will have routes like:
example.com/contact/employees/
example.com/contact/offices/
I am not familiar at all with Laravel but since this question is about REST concepts (I have a small background on these) I should give it a try.
Since you are building a RESTful application, you must not consider others as human beings but only as machines. IMO the urls should determine the action that will be performed. Thus, by using different urls for different actions (perform a CRUD on a contact - either an Employee or a Directorate or SomethingElseInTheFuture) sounds good to me and fits the REST nice.
Hope this clarify the things for you!
[EDIT]
I believe jannis is right. It should be the verbs (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH etc) that make the action instead of the URLs. The urls are just respresenting the resources. My mistake. So both of your points of view are correct. It's just how convenient each approach is for your project (for now and for the near future of your project). IMO, I see #1 (two different restful controllers) more approchable.
Cheers and sorry for any misconception!

How do I wrap an EF 4.1 DbContext in a repository?

All,
I have a requirement to hide my EF implementation behind a Repository. My simple question: Is there a way to execute a 'find' across both a DbSet AND the DbSet.Local without having to deal with them both.
For example - I have standard repository implementation with Add/Update/Remove/FindById. I break the generic pattern by adding a FindByName method (for demo purposes only :). This gives me the following code:
Client App:
ProductCategoryRepository categoryRepository = new ProductCategoryRepository();
categoryRepository.Add(new ProductCategory { Name = "N" });
var category1 = categoryRepository.FindByName("N");
Implementation
public ProductCategory FindByName(string s)
{
// Assume name is unique for demo
return _legoContext.Categories.Where(c => c.Name == s).SingleOrDefault();
}
In this example, category1 is null.
However, if I implement the FindByName method as:
public ProductCategory FindByName(string s)
{
var t = _legoContext.Categories.Local.Where(c => c.Name == s).SingleOrDefault();
if (t == null)
{
t = _legoContext.Categories.Where(c => c.Name == s).SingleOrDefault();
}
return t;
}
In this case, I get what I expect when querying against both a new entry and one that is only in the database. But this presents a few issues that I am confused over:
1) I would assume (as a user of the repository) that cat2 below is not found. But it is found, and the great part is that cat2.Name is "Goober".
ProductCategoryRepository categoryRepository = new ProductCategoryRepository();
var cat = categoryRepository.FindByName("Technic");
cat.Name = "Goober";
var cat2 = categoryRepository.FindByName("Technic");
2) I would like to return a generic IQueryable from my repository.
It just seems like a lot of work to wrap the calls to the DbSet in a repository. Typically, this means that I've screwed something up. I'd appreciate any insight.
With older versions of EF you had very complicated situations that could arise quite fast due to the required references. In this version I would recomend not exposing IQueryable but ICollections or ILists. This will contain EF in your repository and create a good seperation.
Edit: furthermore, by sending back ICollection IEnumerable or IList you are restraining and controlling the queries being sent to the database. This will also allow you to fine tune and maintain the system with greater ease. By exposing IQueriable, you are exposing yourself to side affects which occur when people add more to the query, .Take() or .Where ... .SelectMany, EF will see these additions and will generate sql to reflect these uncontrolled queries. Not confining the queries can result in queries getting executed from the UI and is more complicated tests and maintenance issues in the long run.
since the point of the repository pattern is to be able to swap them out at will. the details of DbSets should be completly hidden.
I think that you're on a good path. The only thing I probaly ask my self is :
Is the context long lived? if not then do not worry about querying Local. An object that has been Inserted / Deleted should only be accessible once it has been comitted.
if this is a long lived context and you need access to deleted and inserted objects then querying the Local is a good idea, but as you've pointed out, you may run into difficulties at some point.

NHibernate DTO Parent child relation

I have som entities and now want to make some DTO´s based on there entities using nhibernate.
I have a Service - Allocation -Ressource where allocation describes how the ressource is allocated for the service.
I want a DTO like
ServiceDTO
-Name
-RessourceDTO
where RessourceDTO also has a name.
In the examples I have see for NHibernate projection/DTO you either use properties or constructor. If I use The Constructor approach I would have something like
ServiceDTO(Name, List
But I can't figure out how to make this work.
Another approach is to extract all the services and then loop through them and hit the database each time, or extract a larger result and then make the DTO's
What is the best approach? I going to hide all of this inside a repository.
How about
public ServiceDTO GetDTOFor(int Id);
{
var service = Session.CreateCriteria<Service>()
.Add(Restrictions.Eq("Id", id)
.SetFetchMode("Resources", fetchmode.eager) // eager load resources
.uniqueResult<Service>();
return new ServiceDTO(service.Name, service.Resources.ToList()) // Copy the Resources
}

NHibernate - Incorrect thinking? Subclassed Model based on Join

I have a simple model class (Part), which pulls from it's information from a single table (t_Part).
I would like a subclass of this model called (ProducedPart), that would still utilize NHibernate's caching mechanisms, but would only be instances of (Part) that have a foreign key relationship in a table called "t_PartProduction". I do not need to have a model for this second table.
I only need a read-only version of ProducedPart
I could always implement a Facade/Repository over this, but I was hoping to setup a mapping that would pull "t_Part" joined with "PartProduction" when I asked for "ProducedPart" in NH.
Is this the wrong way to use NH?
Edit
So, the SQL would look something like
SELECT p.*
FROM t_Part p
INNER JOIN t_PartProduction pp ON pp.PartID = p.PartID
WHERE pp.ProductionYear = '2009'
I believe what you are looking for is a joined subclass. In FNH, it will look something like:
public class PartMap : ClassMap<Part>
{
public PartMap()
{
Id(x => x.Id)
JoinedSubClass<ProducedPart>("PartID", sub => {
sub.Map(x => x.Name);
sub.Map(x => x.ProductionYear);
});
}
}
In order have NHibernate cache the results, you will need to have the subclass mapped (and if you didn't map it, you wouldn't be able to get NH to load it in the first place).
Bringing in some context from the FNH groups thread, it will not explicitly be read-only though. In my opinion, making things read-only is not an appropriate thing for NHibernate to manage. This is better controlled by the database and connections (i.e. creating a connection to the database that only has SELECT permissions on the tables/views being accessed). See my answer to a previous SO question about readonly sessions in NHibernate for more of my thoughts on the matter.
The key here is using both the where and mutable elements of the class definition for NHibernate Mappings.
Using Fluent NHibernate, this looks like:
public Part()
{
WithTable("t_Part");
Id(i => i.Id).ColumnName("PartID");
Map(m => m.Name).ColumnName("Part");
SetAttribute("where", "PartID IN ( SELECT pp.PartID FROM t_PartProduction pp WHERE pp.ProductionYear = '2009' ) ");
ReadOnly();
}
No, this is perfectly possible. Look in the NHibernate documentation for the "table per subclass" model of inheritance. It will actually implement this as a LEFT JOIN, so that when you load a Part, it creates an instance of either your Part or your ProducedPart class depending on whether the other row is present. You'll find documentation on nhibernate.info.
I'm not sure you could make ProducedPart read-only doing this though.
I'm assuming from this:
WHERE pp.ProductionYear = '2009'
that you want the subclass only where the production year is 2009, i.e. if when there is a record in t_PartProduction for a different year, you want this Part treated as a plain Part object, not a ProducedPart, then you could consider creating a view definition within your database that is a filtered version of t_PartProduction, then making your subclass join to this view rather than the base table.