Creating Per-Provider Loggers in Wire Dependency Injection - go

I'm using github.com/google/wire for dependency injection in an open source example project that I'm working on.
I have the following interfaces in a package named interfaces:
type LoginService interface {
Login(email, password) (*LoginResult, error)
}
type JWTService interface {
Generate(user *models.User) (*JWTGenerateResult, error)
Validate(tokenString string) (*JWTValidateResult, error)
}
type UserDao interface {
ByEmail(email string) (*models.User, error)
}
I have implementations that look like this:
type LoginServiceImpl struct {
jwt interfaces.JWTService
dao interfaces.UserDao
logger *zap.Logger
}
func NewLoginService(jwt interfaces.JWTService, dao interfaces.UserDao, \
logger *zap.Logger) *LoginServiceImpl {
return &LoginServiceImpl{jwt: jwt, dao: dao, logger: logger }
}
type JWTServiceImpl struct {
key [32]byte
logger *zap.Logger
}
func NewJWTService(key [32]byte, logger *zap.Logger) (*JWTServiceImpl, error) {
r := JWTServiceImpl {
key: key,
logger: logger,
}
if !r.safe() {
return nil, fmt.Errorf("unable to create JWT service, unsafe key: %s", err)
}
return &r, nil
}
type UserDaoImpl struct {
db: *gorm.DB
logger: *zap.Logger
}
func NewUserDao(db *gorm.DB, logger *zap.Logger) *UserDao {
return &UserDaoImpl{ db: db, logger: logger }
}
I'll exclude other factory functions and implementations here because they all look very similar. They may return an error or be infallible.
I have one other interesting factory for creating the database connection, which I'll just show the interface and not the implementation:
func Connect(config interfaces.MySQLConfig) (*gorm.DB, error) { /* ... */ }
Now, onto the problem. In my command-line entry-point, I'm creating a logger:
logger, err := zap.NewDevelopment()
For each of the factory methods above, I need to provide a logger and not the same logger instance, rather as if these methods were called as follows:
logger, err := zap.NewDevelopment()
// check err
db, err := database.Connect(config)
// check err
userDao := dao.NewUserDao(db, logger.Named("dao.user"))
jwtService, err := service.NewJWTService(jwtKey)
// check err
loginService := service.NewLoginService(jwtService, userDao, logger.Named("service.login"))
My wire.ProviderSet construction looks like this:
wire.NewSet(
wire.Bind(new(interfaces.LoginService), new(*service.LoginServiceImpl)),
wire.Bind(new(interfaces.JWTService), new(*service.JWTServiceImpl)),
wire.Bind(new(interfaces.UserDao), new(*dao.UserDaoImpl)),
service.NewLoginService,
service.NewJWTService,
dao.NewUserDao,
database.Connect,
)
I've read through the user guide, the tutorial, and best practices, and I can't seem to find a way to route a unique zap.Logger to each of these factory methods, and routing a random [32]byte for the JWT service.
Since my root logger is not created at compile time, and since each of these factory methods needs its own unique logger, how do I tell wire to bind these instances to the corresponding factory methods? I'm having a tough time seeing how to route custom instances of the same type to disparate factory methods.
In summary:
Wire seems to favor doing everything at compile-time, storing the dependency injection configuration in a static package-level variable. For most of my use-case, this is okay.
For the rest of my use-case, I need to create some instances manually before running the dependency injection and the ability to route various *zap.Logger instances to each service that needs it.
Essentially, I need to have wire do services.NewUserDao(Connect(mysqlConfig), logger.Named("dao.user"), but I don't know how to express this in wire and merge variables at runtime with wire's compile-time approach.
How do I do this in wire?

I had to change what I was doing somewhat, as is recommended in the documentation:
If you need to inject a common type like string, create a new string type to avoid conflicts with other providers. For example:
type MySQLConnectionString string
Adding Custom Types
The documentation is admittedly very terse, but what I ended up doing is creating a bunch of types:
type JWTKey [32]byte
type JWTServiceLogger *zap.Logger
type LoginServiceLogger *zap.Logger
type UserDaoLogger *zap.Logger
Updating Producer Functions
I updated my producer methods to accept these types, but did not have to update my structs:
// LoginServiceImpl implements interfaces.LoginService
var _ interfaces.LoginService = (*LoginServiceImpl)(nil)
type LoginServiceImpl struct {
dao interfaces.UserDao
jwt interfaces.JWTService
logger *zap.Logger
}
func NewLoginService(dao interfaces.UserDao, jwt interfaces.JWTService,
logger LoginServiceLogger) *LoginServiceImpl {
return &LoginServiceImpl {
dao: dao,
jwt: jwt,
logger: logger,
}
}
This above part made sense; giving distinct types meant that wire had less to figure out.
Creating an Injector
Next, I had to create the dummy injector and then use wire to generate the corresponding wire_gen.go. This was not easy and very unintuitive. When following the documentation, things kept breaking and giving me very unhelpful error messages.
I have a cmd/ package and my CLI entrypoint lives in cmd/serve/root.go, which is run as ./api serve from the command-line. I created my injector function in cmd/serve/injectors.go, note that // +build wireinject and the following newline are required to inform Go that this file is used for code generation and not code itself.
I ultimately arrived at the following code after much trial and error:
// +build wireinject
package serve
import /*...*/
func initializeLoginService(
config interfaces.MySQLConfig,
jwtKey service.JWTKey,
loginServiceLogger service.LoginServiceLogger,
jwtServiceLogger service.JWTServiceLogger,
userDaoLogger service.UserDaoLogger,
databaseLogger database.DatabaseLogger,
) (interfaces.LoginService, error) {
wire.Build(
// bind interfaces to implementations
wire.Bind(new(interfaces.LoginService), new(*service.LoginServiceImpl)),
wire.Bind(new(interfaces.JWTService), new(*service.JWTServiceImpl)),
wire.Bind(new(interfaces.UserDao), new(*dao.UserDao)),
// services
service.NewLoginService,
service.NewJWTService,
// daos
dao.NewUserDao,
// database
database.Connect,
)
return nil, nil
}
The wire.Bind calls inform wire which implementation to use for a given interface so it will know that service.NewLoginService which returns a *LoginServiceImpl should be used as the interfaces.LoginService.
The rest of the entities in the call to wire.Build are just factory functions.
Passing Values to an Injector
One of the the issues I ran into was that I was trying to pass values into wire.Build like the documentation describes:
Occasionally, it is useful to bind a basic value (usually nil) to a type. Instead of having injectors depend on a throwaway provider function, you can add a value expression to a provider set.
type Foo struct {
X int
}
func injectFoo() Foo {
wire.Build(wire.Value(Foo{X: 42}))
return Foo{}
}
...
It's important to note that the expression will be copied to the injector's package; references to variables will be evaluated during the injector package's initialization. Wire will emit an error if the expression calls any functions or receives from any channels.
This is what confused me; it sounded like you could only really use constant values when trying to run an injector, but there are two lines in the docs in the "injectors" section:
Like providers, injectors can be parameterized on inputs (which then get sent to providers) and can return errors. Arguments to wire.Build are the same as wire.NewSet: they form a provider set. This is the provider set that gets used during code generation for that injector.
These lines are accompanied by this code:
func initializeBaz(ctx context.Context) (foobarbaz.Baz, error) {
wire.Build(foobarbaz.MegaSet)
return foobarbaz.Baz{}, nil
}
This is what I missed and what caused me to lose a lot of time on this. context.Context doesn't seem to be passed anywhere in this code, and it's a common type so I just kind of shrugged it off and didn't learn from it.
I defined my injector function to take arguments for the JWT key, the MySQL config, and the logger types:
func initializeLoginService(
config interfaces.MySQLConfig,
jwtKey service.JWTKey,
loginServiceLogger service.LoginServiceLogger,
jwtServiceLogger service.JWTServiceLogger,
userDaoLogger service.UserDaoLogger,
databaseLogger database.DatabaseLogger,
) (interfaces.LoginService, error) {
// ...
return nil, nil
}
Then, I attempted to inject them into wire.Build:
wire.Build(
// ...
wire.Value(config),
wire.Value(jwtKey),
wire.Value(loginServiceLogger),
// ...
)
When I attempted to run wire, it complained that these types were defined twice. I was very confused by this behavior, but ultimately learned that wire automatically sends all function parameters into wire.Build.
Once again: wire automatically sends all injector function parameters into wire.Build.
This was not intuitive to me, but I learned the hard way that it's the way wire works.
Summary
wire does not provide a way for it to distinguish values of the same type within its dependency injection system. Thus, you need to wrap these simple types with type definitions to let wire know how to route them, so instead of [32]byte, type JWTKey [32]byte.
To inject live values into your wire.Build call, simply change your injector function signature to include those values in the function parameters and wire will automatically inject them into wire.Build.
Run cd pkg/my/package && wire to create wire_gen.go in that directory for your defined injectors. Once this is done, future calls to go generate will automatically update wire_gen.go as changes occur.
I have wire_gen.go files checked-in to my version control system (VCS) which is Git, which feels weird due to these being generated build artifacts, but this seems to be the way that this is typically done. It might be more advantageous to exclude wire_gen.go, but if you do this, you'll need to find every package which includes a file with a // +build wireinject header, run wire in that directory, and then go generate just to be sure.
Hopefully this clears up the way that wire works with actual values: make them type safe with type wrappers, and simply pass them to your injector function, and wire does the rest.

Related

A repository/store for database as interface or per table interface?

What I designed first was to have a Store interface as follow:
// store.go
type Store interface {
CreateUser(user model.User) (string, error)
GetProfile(userId string) (model.User, error)
CreateHouse(user model.House) (string, error)
}
And in another file, mongo_store.go, its implementation codes:
type mongoStore struct {
store *mongo.Client
}
func (mc *mongoUserStore) CreateUser(user model.User) (string, error) {
}
// And so on...
In mongo_store.go I have another method that returns an instance of MongoStore:
func NewMongoDBStore() Store {
// Some code to connect to MongoDB and finally
s := &mongoStore{
store: client,
}
return s
}
I've gone this way to abstract away DB layer. So in code we pass store around and call let's say CreateUser as an example.
My team members had the object of creating Store interface per table. So we should have UserStore interface with their methods or HouseStore with their own methods.
First question is that is this a best practice to change the code this way? I could not come up with a good argument to reject their change request. It's been said that this way we can mock less code in tests and also it is not polluted, all in one place for all methods that work with DB.
My Second Question is if we go the second approach, how NewMongoDBStore should return different store types. So instead of Store as return type we have to have different store types like UserStore, HouseStore, etc.
I always try to stick to one rule when designing new interfaces in Go: keep interfaces as small as possible. You can see that stdlib also tries to follow that rule, see for example fmt.Stringer, http.Handler or json.Marshaler. Look how in the json library they even separated json.Marshaler and json.Unmarshaler (same for the io.Reader and io.Writer), which, you can say, seem to be very connected together.
Coming back to your example, I think that your team makes a good point - I would go for the separation of the storages interfaces. The only situation in which I wouldn't do that is if you are sure that this interface will never expand and will always stick to this very limited number of methods. But I think this is very unlikely for the storage-like interfaces. For example in the near future you could like to add some more-grained filtering methods, or e.g. a method to insert storage objects in a batch.
In my opinion you can only benefit from separating the interfaces and here is why:
It's true that it is easier to mock an interface with a 1-2 methods than an interface with, let's say, 10 methods.
It's always better to separate functionalities into smaller pieces as you may not need to use all of them at once in every place. To give you a better picture you can have one service which would use your UserStore and your HouseStore implementations, but you can also have a second service that wouldn't need a HouseStore and would only use a UserStore implementation. Thanks to that it would be much easier to mock the second service (as it uses only a UserStore) and if you later add any methods to the HouseStore there is no possible way it could affect the second service anyhow as it knows nothing about this interface.
I think the above answers your first question. Coming to the second question you can solve it in two ways I think:
First way is something I usually do. You can simply create separate implementations for separate interfaces. So if you have, following your example, a file store.go containing interfaces:
type UserStore interface {
CreateUser(user model.User) (string, error)
// Rest of the methods ...
}
type HouseStore interface {
CreateHouse(house model.House) (string, error)
// Rest of the methods ...
}
I would make a user_mongo_store.go with MongoDB implementation for the UserStore ...
type userMongoStore struct {
store *mongo.Client
}
func (s *userMongoStore) CreateUser(user model.User) (string, error) {
// CreateUser method implementation ...
}
func NewUserMongoStore() UserStore {
// Some code to connect to MongoDB and finally
s := &userMongoStore{
store: client,
}
return s
}
// Rest of the UserStore methods implementations ...
... and I would also make a house_mongo_store.go file with MongoDB implementation for the HouseStore:
type houseMongoStore struct {
store *mongo.Client
}
func (s *houseMongoStore) CreateHouse(house model.House) (string, error) {
// CreateHouse method implementation ...
}
func NewHouseMongoStore() HouseStore {
// Some code to connect to MongoDB and finally
s := &houseMongoStore{
store: client,
}
return s
}
// Rest of the HouseStore methods implementations ...
You could ask here if will not feel inconvinient to keep two MongoDB storages implementations separated as they could contain the same MongoDB-related operations. Answer to that question is no: you can always create e.g. mongo_store.go to keep all the common functions that will be shared by all the MongoDB storages implementations.
The only disadvantage I can see here is a little bit more code in general, but in the end it gives you much cleaner, better separated and more modular code.
Second way, which I would recommend less, is to use the (in my opinion) very powerful Go feature which is a fact that you don't declare implementing an interface (unlike in e.g. Java), you just have to implement all the interfaces methods in your struct and you can use it as all these interfaces implementations. In your case you could stick to the single mongoStore struct and make it implement both the UserStore and the HouseStore interfaces methods. That way you would end up with something like this:
type mongoStore struct {
store *mongo.Client
}
func (s *mongoStore) CreateUser(user model.User) (string, error) {
// CreateUser method implementation ...
}
func (s *mongoStore) CreateHouse(house model.House) (string, error) {
// CreateHouse method implementation ...
}
// Rest of the UserStore and HouseStore
// interfaces methods implementations ...
but this solution leaves us with a problem: how to create a function to create UserStore and HouseStore interfaces implementations. Well, in this situation you could either make mongoStore struct exported and use it directly as both a UserStore and HouseStore implementations or, which looks a little bit more exotic but is still a valid piece of code, you could make a function that would return this single struct as both implementations, e.g.:
func NewMongoStores() (UserStore, HouseStore) {
s := &mongoStore{
store: client,
}
return s, s
}
I think I gave you some options, but to sum up, I would encourage you to keep your interfaces and their implementations separated.

Mock interface return type for dep injection

EDIT
As pointed out in the accepted answer, the issue here was doing go duck typing in the wrong direction. I'd like to add the following github issue as an attachment, since it provided me useful information in addition to #matt answer below:
https://github.com/golang/mock/issues/316#issuecomment-512043925
ORIGINAL POST
I'm new to dependencies injection, and wanted to test it on a module that uses couchbase go sdk. For this purpose I need interfaces to reproduce both Cluster and Bucket structures.
On the Cluster interface I need the Bucket() method, which has the following signature:
func (c *gocb.Cluster) Bucket(bucketName string) *gocb.Bucket
I also need the two following methods from the Bucket interface:
func (b *gocb.Bucket) Collection(collectionName string) gocb.*Collection
func (b *gocb.Bucket) DefaultCollection() *gocb.Collection
The tricky part is that both Cluster and Bucket methods have pointer receivers. This isn't hard in itself, since I know how to mock such methods alone (you just need to use a pointer to the type that implements the interface).
The issue is that one of the Cluster methods needs to return a pointer that implements the Bucket interface, since it also has pointer receivers methods. I tried many combinations, but each time I use an non-mocked *gocb.Cluster value as an argument to one of my functions, it fails because the Bucket method on the cluster instance isn't implemented correctly by the instance.
Below is my latest attempt:
package deps
import (
"github.com/couchbase/gocb/v2"
)
// Database mocks the gocb.Cluster interface.
type Database interface {
Bucket(bucketName string) *Bucket
}
// Bucket mocks the gocb.Bucket interface.
type Bucket interface {
Collection(collectionName string) *gocb.Collection
DefaultCollection() *gocb.Collection
}
The linter then returns the following error whenever I try to use an actual gocb.Cluster value:
I also tried to replace the Bucket method signature in my Database interface with:
// Database mocks the gocb.Cluster interface.
type Database interface {
Bucket(bucketName string) Bucket
}
Which again gives me the following lint error:
How can I implement an interface to mock both methods ?
I think the key concept that you're missing is that the mock object has to match the interface requirements of what you're mocking. That includes the parameters and return values of the methods.
type Database interface {
// Bucket(bucketName string) *Bucket // Wrong
Bucket(bucketName string) *gocb.Bucket // Correct
}
You can still use the return value of Database.Bucket as a deps.Bucket, given that you've also mocked that interface properly.
Unless I'm missing something about your testing process, this should do what you need.
package main
import (
"github.com/couchbase/gocb/v2"
)
// Database mocks the gocb.Cluster interface.
type Database interface {
Bucket(bucketName string) *gocb.Bucket
}
// Bucket mocks the gocb.Bucket interface.
type Bucket interface {
Collection(collectionName string) *gocb.Collection
DefaultCollection() *gocb.Collection
}
func someFunc(db Database) *gocb.Bucket {
return db.Bucket("")
}
func anotherFunc(bucket Bucket) {
bucket.Collection("")
}
func main() {
var cluster *gocb.Cluster
bucket := someFunc(cluster)
anotherFunc(bucket)
}

How to get back a pointer provider from `wire.FieldsOf`?

I am trying to use google wire to wire a config field and failing hard at it.
I have the following wire entrypoint
type Config struct {
UserConfig UserConfig
}
func initialize(ctx context.Context, cfg *Config) (*st, func(), error) {
panic( // panic to be replaced by generated code
wire.Build(
InitializeUser,
wire.FieldsOf(new(Config), "UserConfig"),
),
)
}
func InitializeUser(config *UserConfig) *User {
// initialize user from user config
}
I am trying to make the UserConfig field in the Configstruct a provider without having to write a simple wrapper initializer just for that.
It is my understanding that wire.FieldsOf is supposed to do exactly this however it does not seem to work (keep geting no provider found for *Config). My guess is it only provides a UserConfig and not a *UserConfig.
Without changing the UserConfig field to a pointer or writing a initializer wrapper that takes a config and returns a *UserConfig, is there any way to do this in wire?

How can we mock cassandra session using golang?

Q : Is there any way to mock casssandra session using go without actually connecting to any keyspace/schema/DB. Can we mock cassandra for unit testing?
In general the best thing to do is to use interfaces instead of the real cassandra library implementation.
You've not included an example so I've created on below:
type Service struct {
session *gocql.Session
}
func (s *Service) Tweets() {
var id gocql.UUID
var text string
q := `SELECT id, text FROM tweet WHERE timeline = ? LIMIT 1`
if err := s.session.Query(q, "me").Consistency(gocql.One).Scan(&id, &text); err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
fmt.Println("Tweet:", id, text)
}
In this example we use the s.session field from the *Service method receiver.
Instead of using the session directly, we can create interfaces that allow us to later create mocks.
// SessionInterface allows gomock mock of gocql.Session
type SessionInterface interface {
Query(string, ...interface{}) QueryInterface
}
// QueryInterface allows gomock mock of gocql.Query
type QueryInterface interface {
Bind(...interface{}) QueryInterface
Exec() error
Iter() IterInterface
Scan(...interface{}) error
}
Now our updated code might look like:
type Service struct {
session SessionInterface
}
This means that we can implement the SessionInterface with a mock implementation and control the return values for testing.
Full code example of interfaces here
This question is a bit old, but I also found the gockle library, which contains an interface for the mock-worth driver components. This library is referenced by the gocql library in the README.

What is the best way to have dependency injection in Golang

I'm a beginner in Golang and I'm working on a small library which need to get a DB connection at some point in the code for différent sub package / method call. I'm just wondering how I can manage this ?
Example, If I manage to have a webserver, it works with handler, so how can I get this connection inside this function ?
It could be used with another process, simple method call or MVC model ?
I don't want to use global because for me it's a bad practice except if it's very exceptional way (or tricky somehow).
I read a lot of write in different website, but still, I'm asking and learning from different opinion and experiences.
Thanks for your time !
Create a struct that represent the resource​, let's call Cart. Add get and post methods to this struct. These methods should be http handlers. In main create an instance of the struct with db interface. And in the route call Cart.get. Now in get method you have access to the db interface.
Not a working example, just to get the idea of injecting for testing.
type storage interface {
PrepareContext(context.Context, string) (*sql.Stmt, error)
}
func main() {
db, _ := sql.Open("mysql", `queryString`)
http.HandleFunc("/", Cart{db}.get)
http.ListenAndServe(":8080", nil)
}
type Cart struct {
storage
}
func (crt Cart) get(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
q, _ := crt.PrepareContext(context.Background(), `select *`)
fmt.Println(q.Exec())
}
/////////Test
type testDB struct{}
func (c testDB) PrepareContext(context.Context, string) (*sql.Stmt, error) {
return nil, nil
}
func TestGet(t *testing.T) {
db := testDB{}
_ = Cart{db}
//http test here
}
I would suggest Dargo which is an injection engine in the style of Java CDI and/or JSR-330. It uses struct annotations and Injection is performed using reflection or using creator functions. It supports different lifecycles for services including Singleton (created exactly once, lazily), PerLookup (created every time injected or looked up), Immediate (created exactly once, eagerly) and DargoContext (tied to the lifecycle of a context.Context)
You can also try Hiboot which is a web/cli application framework that support dependency injection out of box.
Docs
// HelloService is a simple service interface, with interface, we can mock a fake service in unit test
type HelloService interface {
SayHello(name string) string
}
type helloServiceImpl struct {
}
func init() {
// Register Rest Controller through constructor newHelloController
// Register Service through constructor newHelloService
app.Register(newHelloController, newHelloService)
}
// please note that the return type name of the constructor HelloService,
// hiboot will instantiate a instance named helloService for dependency injection
func newHelloService() HelloService {
return &helloServiceImpl{}
}
// SayHello is a service method implementation
func (s *helloServiceImpl) SayHello(name string) string {
return "Hello" + name
}
// PATH: /login
type helloController struct {
web.Controller
helloService HelloService
}
// newHelloController inject helloService through the argument helloService HelloService on constructor
func newHelloController(helloService HelloService) *helloController {
return &helloController{
helloService: helloService,
}
}
// Get /
// The first word of method name is the http method GET
func (c *helloController) Get(name string) string {
return c.helloService.SayHello(name)
}
I would suggest giving a try to https://github.com/facebookgo/inject. It allows to define an object graph and specify dependencies with struct annotations. Injection is performed using reflection.
For an IoC container, you can try this package:
https://github.com/golobby/container
Example of singleton binding:
container.Singleton(func() Database {
return &MySQL{}
})
Example of resolving:
var db Database
container.Make(&db)
As you can see it's so easy to work with.

Resources