问题

How can I resolve dependencies to a controller that is testable?

How it works: A URI is routed to a Controller, a Controller may have dependencies to perform a certain task.

<?php

require 'vendor/autoload.php';

/*
 * Registry
 * Singleton
 * Tight coupling
 * Testable?
 */

$request = new Example\Http\Request();

Example\Dependency\Registry::getInstance()->set('request', $request);

$controller = new Example\Controller\RegistryController();

$controller->indexAction();

/*
 * Service Locator
 *
 * Testable? Hard!
 *
 */

$request = new Example\Http\Request();

$serviceLocator = new Example\Dependency\ServiceLocator();

$serviceLocator->set('request', $request);

$controller = new Example\Controller\ServiceLocatorController($serviceLocator);

$controller->indexAction();

/*
 * Poor Man
 *
 * Testable? Yes!
 * Pain in the ass to create with many dependencies, and how do we know specifically what dependencies a controller needs
 * during creation?
 * A solution is the Factory, but you would still need to manually add every dependencies a specific controller needs
 * etc.
 *
 */

$request = new Example\Http\Request();

$controller = new Example\Controller\PoorManController($request);

$controller->indexAction();

This is my interpretation of the design pattern examples

Registry:

Singleton
Tight coupling
Testable? No

Service Locator

Testable? Hard/No (?)

Poor Man Di

Testable
Hard to maintain with many dependencies

Registry

<?php
namespace Example\Dependency;

class Registry
{
    protected $items;

    public static function getInstance()
    {
        static $instance = null;
        if (null === $instance) {
            $instance = new static();
        }

        return $instance;
    }

    public function set($name, $item)
    {
        $this->items[$name] = $item;
    }

    public function get($name)
    {
        return $this->items[$name];
    }
}

Service Locator

<?php
namespace Example\Dependency;

class ServiceLocator
{
    protected $items;

    public function set($name, $item)
    {
        $this->items[$name] = $item;
    }

    public function get($name)
    {
        return $this->items[$name];
    }
}

How can I resolve dependencies to a controller that is testable?

回答1:

What would be the dependencies that you are talking about in a controller?

The to major solution would be:

injecting a factory of services in the controller through constructor
using a DI container to pass in the specific services directly

I am going to try to describe both approaches separately in detail.

_{Note: all examples will be leaving out interaction with view, handling of authorization, dealing with dependencies of service factory and other specifics}

Injection of factory

The simplified part of bootstrap stage, which deals with kicking off stuff to the controller, would look kinda like this

$request = //... we do something to initialize and route this 
$resource = $request->getParameter('controller');
$command = $request->getMethod() . $request->getParameter('action');

$factory = new ServiceFactory;
if ( class_exists( $resource ) ) {
    $controller = new $resource( $factory );
    $controller->{$command}( $request );
} else {
    // do something, because requesting non-existing thing
}

This approach provides a clear way for extending and/or substituting the model layer related code simply by passing in a different factory as the dependency. In controller it would look something like this:

public function __construct( $factory )
{
    $this->serviceFactory = $factory;
}


public function postLogin( $request ) 
{
    $authentication = $this->serviceFactory->create( 'Authentication' );
    $authentication->login(
        $request->getParameter('username'),
        $request->getParameter('password')
    );
}

This means, that, to test this controller's method, you would have to write a unit-test, which mock the content of $this->serviceFactory, the created instance and the passed in value of $request. Said mock would need to return an instance, which can accept two parameter.

_{Note: The response to the user should be handled entirely by view instance, since creating the response is part of UI logic. Keep in mind that HTTP Location header is also a form of response.}

The unit-test for such controller would look like:

public function test_if_Posting_of_Login_Works()
{    
    // setting up mocks for the seam

    $service = $this->getMock( 'Services\Authentication', ['login']);
    $service->expects( $this->once() )
            ->method( 'login' )
            ->with( $this->equalTo('foo'), 
                     $this->equalTo('bar') );

    $factory = $this->getMock( 'ServiceFactory', ['create']);
    $factory->expects( $this->once() )
            ->method( 'create' )
            ->with( $this->equalTo('Authentication'))
            ->will( $this->returnValue( $service ) );

    $request = $this->getMock( 'Request', ['getParameter']);
    $request->expects( $this->exactly(2) )
             ->method( 'getParameter' )
             ->will( $this->onConsecutiveCalls( 'foo', 'bar' ) );

    // test itself

    $instance = new SomeController( $factory );
    $instance->postLogin( $request );

    // done
}

Controllers are supposed to be the thinnest part of the application. The responsibility of controller is: take user input and, based on that input, alter the state of model layer (and in rare case - current view). That's it.

With DI container

This other approach is .. well .. it's basically a trade of complexity (subtract in one place, add more on others). It also relays on having a real DI containers, instead of glorified service locators, like Pimple.

My recommendation: check out Auryn.

What a DI container does is, using either configuration file or reflection, it determines dependencies for the instance, that you want to create. Collects said dependencies. And passes in the constructor for the instance.

$request = //... we do something to initialize and route this 
$resource = $request->getParameter('controller');
$command = $request->getMethod() . $request->getParameter('action');

$container = new DIContainer;
try {
    $controller = $container->create( $resource );
    $controller->{$command}( $request );
} catch ( FubarException $e ) {
    // do something, because requesting non-existing thing
}

So, aside from ability to throw exception, the bootstrapping of the controller stays pretty much the same.

Also, at this point you should already recognize, that switching from one approach to other would mostly require complete rewrite of controller (and the associated unit tests).

The controller's method in this case would look something like:

private $authenticationService;

#IMPORTANT: if you are using reflection-based DI container,
#then the type-hinting would be MANDATORY
public function __construct( Service\Authentication $authenticationService )
{
    $this->authenticationService = $authenticationService;
}

public function postLogin( $request )
{
    $this->authenticatioService->login(
            $request->getParameter('username'),
            $request->getParameter('password')
    );
}

As for writing a test, in this case again all you need to do is provide some mocks for isolation and simply verify. But, in this case, the unit testing is simpler:

public function test_if_Posting_of_Login_Works()
{    
    // setting up mocks for the seam

    $service = $this->getMock( 'Services\Authentication', ['login']);
    $service->expects( $this->once() )
            ->method( 'login' )
            ->with( $this->equalTo('foo'), 
                     $this->equalTo('bar') );

    $request = $this->getMock( 'Request', ['getParameter']);
    $request->expects( $this->exactly(2) )
             ->method( 'getParameter' )
             ->will( $this->onConsecutiveCalls( 'foo', 'bar' ) );

    // test itself

    $instance = new SomeController( $service );
    $instance->postLogin( $request );

    // done
}

As you can see, in this case you have one less class to mock.

Miscellaneous notes

Coupling to the name (in the examples - "authentication"):

As you might have notices, in both examples your code would be coupled to the name of service, which was used. And even if you use configuration-based DI container (as it is possible in symfony), you still will end up defining name of the specific class.
DI containers are not magic:

The use of DI containers has been somewhat hyped in past couple years. It is not a silver bullet. I would even go as far as to say that: DI containers are incompatible with SOLID. Specifically because they do not work with interfaces. You cannot really use polymorphic behavior in the code, that will be initialized by a DI container.

Then there is the problem with configuration-based DI. Well .. it's just beautiful while project is tiny. But as project grows, the configuration file grows too. You can end up with glorious WALL of xml/yaml configuration, which is understood by only one single person in project.

And the third issue is complexity. Good DI containers are not simple to make. And if you use 3rd party tool, you are introducing additional risks.
Too many dependencies:

If your class has too many dependencies, then it is not a failure of DI as practice. Instead it is a clear indication, that your class is doing too many things. It is violating Single Responsibility Principle.
Controllers actually have (some) logic:

The examples used above were extremely simple and where interacting with model layer through a single service. In real world your controller methods will contain control-structures (loops, conditionals, stuff).

The most basic use-case would be a controller which handles contact form with as "subject" dropdown. Most of the messages would be directed to a service that communicates with some CRM. But if user pick "report a bug", then the message should be passed to a difference service which automatically create a ticket in bug tracker and sends some notifications.
It's PHP Unit:

The examples of unit-tests are written using PHPUnit framework. If you are using some other framework, or writing tests manually, you would have to make some basic alterations
You will have more tests:

The unit-test example are not the entire set of tests that you will have for a controller's method. Especially, when you have controllers that are non-trivial.

Other materials

There are some .. emm ... tangential subjects.

Brace for: shameless self-promotion

dealing with access control in MVC-like architecture

Some frameworks have nasty habit of pushing the authorization checks (do not confuse with "authentication" .. different subject) in the controller. Aside from being completely stupid thing to do, it also introduces additional dependencies (often - globally scoped) in the controllers.

There is another post which uses similar approach for introducing non-invasive logging
list of lectures

It's kinda aimed at people who want to learn about MVC, but materials there are actually for general education in OOP and development practices. The idea is that, by the time when you are done with that list, MVC and other SoC implementations will only cause you to go "Oh, this had a name? I thought it was just common sense."
implementing model layer

Explains what those magical "services" are in the description above.

回答2:

I have tried this from http://culttt.com/2013/07/15/how-to-structure-testable-controllers-in-laravel-4/

How you should structure your Controllers to make them testable.?

Testing your Controllers is a critical aspect of building a solid web application, but it is important that you only tests the appropriate bits of your application.

Fortunately, Laravel 4 makes separating the concerns of your Controller really easy. This makes testing your Controllers really straight forward as long as you have structured them correctly.

What should I be testing in my Controller?

Before I get into how to structure your Controllers for testability, first its important to understand what exactly we need to test for.

As I mentioned in Setting up your first Laravel 4 Controller, Controllers should only be concerned with moving data between the Model and the View. You don’t need to verify that the database is pulling the correct data, only that the Controller is calling the right method. Therefore your Controller tests should never touch the database.

This is really what I’m going to be showing you today because by default it is pretty easy to slip into coupling the Controller and the Model together. An example of bad practice

As a way of illustrating what I’m trying to avoid, here is an example of a Controller method:

public function index()
{
  return User::all();
}

This is a bad practice because we have no way of mocking User::all(); and so the associated test will be forced to hit the database.

Dependency Injection to the rescue

In order to get around this problem, we have to inject the dependency into the Controller. Dependency Injection is where you pass the class an instance of an object, rather than letting that object create the instance for its self.

By injecting the dependency into the Controller, we can pass the class a mock instead of the database instead of the actual database object itself during our tests. This means we can test the functionality of the Controller without ever touching the database.

As a general guide, anywhere you see a class that is creating an instance of another object it is usually a sign that this could be handled better with dependency injection. You never want your objects to be tightly coupled and so by not allowing a class to instantiate another class you can prevent this from happening.

Automatic Resolution

Laravel 4 has a beautiful way of handling Dependancy Injection. This means you can resolve classes without any configuration at all in many scenarios.

This means that if you pass a class an instance of another class through the constructor, Laravel will automatically inject that dependency for you!

Basically, everything will work without any configuration on your part.

Injecting the database into a Controller

So now you understand the problem and the theory of the solution, we can now fix the Controller so it isn’t coupled to the database.

If you remember back to last week’s post on Laravel Repositories, you might have noticed that I already fixed this problem.

So instead of doing:

public function index()
{
  return User::all();
}

I did:

public function __construct(User $user)
{
  $this->user = $user;
}

/**
 * Display a listing of the resource.
 *
 * @return Response
 */
public function index()
{
  return $this->user->all();
}

When the UserController class is created, the __construct method is automatically run. The __construct method is injected with an instance of the User repository, which is then set on the $this->user property of the class.

Now whenever you want to use the database in your methods, you can use the $this->user instance.

Mocking the database in your Controller tests

The real magic happens when you come to write your Controller tests. Now that you are passing an instance of the database to the Controller, you can mock the database instead of actually hitting the database. This will not only improve performance, but you won’t have any test data lying around after your tests.

First thing I’m going to do is to create a new folder under the tests directory called functional. I like to think of Controller tests as being functional tests because we are testing the incoming traffic and the rendered view.

Next I’m going to create a file called UserControllerTest.php and write the following boilerplate code:

<?php

class UserControllerTest extends TestCase {

}

Mocking with Mockery

If you remember back to my post, What is Test Driven Development?, I talked about Mocks as being, a replacement for dependent objects.

In order to create Mocks for the tests in Cribbb, I’m going to use a fantastic package called Mockery.

Mockery allows you to mock objects in your project so you don’t have to use the real dependency. By mocking an object, you can tell Mockery which method you would like to call and what you would like to be returned.

This enables you to isolate your dependencies so you only make the required Controller calls in order for the test to pass.

For example, if you wanted to call the all() method on your database object, instead of actually hitting the database you can mock the call by telling Mockery you want to call the all() method and it should return an expected value. You aren’t testing whether the database can return records or not, you only care about being able to trigger the method and deal with the return value.

Installing Mockery Like all good PHP packages, Mockery can be installed through Composer.

To install Mockery through Composer, add the following line to your composer.json file:

"require-dev": {
  "mockery/mockery": "dev-master"
}

Next, install the package:

composer install --dev

Setting up Mockery

Now to set up Mockery, we have to create a couple of set up methods in the test file:

public function setUp()
{
  parent::setUp();

  $this->mock = $this->mock('Cribbb\Storage\User\UserRepository');
}

public function mock($class)
{
  $mock = Mockery::mock($class);

  $this->app->instance($class, $mock);

  return $mock;
}

The setUp() method is run before any of the tests. Here we are grabbing a copy of the UserRepository and creating a new mock.

In the mock() method, $this->app->instance tells Laravel’s IoC container to bind the $mock instance to the UserRepository class. This means that whenever Laravel wants to use this class, it will use the mock instead. Writing your first Controller test

Next you can write your first Controller test:

public function testIndex()
{
  $this->mock->shouldReceive('all')->once();

  $this->call('GET', 'user');

  $this->assertResponseOk();
}

In this test I’m asking the mock to call the all() method once on the UserRepository. I then call the page using a GET request and then I assert that the response was ok.

Conclusion

Testing Controllers shouldn’t be as difficult or as complicated as it is made out to be. As long as you isolate the dependencies and only test the right bits, testing Controllers should be really straight forward.

may this help you.