I'm wondering what's the "best" approach to validate fields generically. In my application several tables have date values that are always entered using a date picker widget. I don't want to repeat the validation code, so I would like to do something like filling the $validate array in the AppModel. But it gets overwritten in the concrete model class. The best I found so far is the paragraph "Dynamically change validation rules" in the cake book, and apply that logic to the AppModel somehow, but it looks a bit hacky and un-caky. Does anyone have a hint?
(If you have questions, please ask.)
Thanks
Just name them differently - unique so to speak:
public function validateDateTime() {}
etc. This way your custom rules don't verwrite the core rules and vica versa.
I had some validation rules that I wanted to put in 3 models, to not repeat the same code, here what I did
in AppModel.php, define some var with those rules that should be in multiple models.
public $validationRules = arra(
// rules here
);
and add them for necessary models in AppModel's constructor
public function __construct($id = false, $table = null, $ds = null) {
parent::__construct($id, $table, $ds);
/**
* add validation
*/
if (in_array($this->alias, array('MyModel1', 'MyModel2', 'MyModel3')) ) {
$this->validate = array_merge($this->validate, $this->validationRules);
}
}
if there are some custom validation functions, those can be moved to AppModel.php as well.
Related
I am currently moving over from symfony to laravel, it's quite a bit different when it comes to the database. So i have a basic model, i'm just going to use an example:
class Test extends Model
{
use HasFactory;
}
All good, i have a migration and the table created. However, i don't like this:
$test = new Test();
$test->my_field = 'hello';
$test->save();
I don't like it because it's having to use a magic __set() to create the parameter, if i define the parameter in my model like this:
class Test extends Model
{
use HasFactory;
public ?string $my_field;
}
I get database errors when it tries to insert when i define the params like this. Why is that? It's doing the same thing as __set() but i'm actually physically defining them, which in my opinion is a better way to code it as my IDE can typehint and it's just nicer to follow the program knowing what params are there.
What's the reason for it inserting when i don't define them, and not when i do? From my actual table which is bookings , has a field booking_ref:
General error: 1364 Field 'booking_ref' doesn't have a default value (SQL: insert into booking_reviews (updated_at, created_at) values (2021-12-13 14:13:08, 2021-12-13 14:13:08))
This happens when i define the $booking_ref param on the model, but if i take it out and rely on the __set() method it works fine. Doesn't make any sense to me right now.
I think this is a reasonable enough misunderstanding to be useful to future visitors, so I want to try to explain what's going on with some pseudo-code and some references to the current source code.
You are correct that when setting a property on a Laravel model, that is a column in the DB, internally Laravel is using the PHP magic method __set.
What this does is allow you to 1) set properties directly instead of calling some kind of setter function, and 2) interact with your table columns without needing the boilerplate of column definitions in your model.
Where the assumptions go wrong is with what __set is doing. __set does not have to simply set an actual property with the same name. __set is just a method you may implement to do whatever you want. What you assumption implies is that it's doing something like this:
public function __set($key, $value)
{
$this->{$key} = $value;
}
However, you can do whatever you want with the $key and $value passed to the magic method.
What Laravel does is call another method defined in the HasAttributes trait - setAttribute.
public function __set($key, $value)
{
$this->setAttribute($key, $value);
}
setAttribute does a few extra things, but most importantly it adds the key/value pair to Model property $this->attributes[].
To hopefully help this difference make sense, here is what the two __set methods would yield with a basic example:
$model->my_column = 'value';
// 1st example
/**
* {
* public $my_column = 'value';
* }
*/
// Laravel way
/**
* {
* protected $attributes= ['my_column => 'value'];
* }
*/
I won't go through both saving and updating since they're very similar, but to show how this is used, we can look at the save method, which calls performInsert and after a few more calls makes it's way back to the attributes property to determine what to actually insert into the query.
Summary
Laravel does not use custom model properties when deciding what column/values to add to queries.
This is why when you create custom mutators, you interact with the attributes property just like Laravel does internally.
Anytime you introduce "magic" into code, you have some tradeoffs. In this case, that tradeoff is slightly less clarity with what database columns are actually available. However, like I mentioned in comments, there are other solutions to make models more IDE friendly like Laravel IDE helper.
I have created a custom rule to make sure the number is of two decimal places. The database has numbers stored as decimal(19,4). To display the number with only two decimal places, I also have put an accessor in place. Now the problem is that the accessor overrides the custom validation rule.
the relevant part from custom validation rule
public function passes($attribute, $value)
{
$precision = Config::get('accounting.decimal');
return preg_match('/^\d+(\.\d{1,'.$precision.'})?$/',$value);
}
the accessor in model
public function getRateAttribute($value)
{
$precision = Config::get('accounting.decimal');
return round($value, $precision);
}
the validation rule in the livewire component
public function rules()
{
return [
'editing.rate' => ['required', new NumberFormat()],
];
}
Desired behavior:
Whenever a user enters a number with more than two decimal places, it should throw the customer validation error.
Every time the field is used anywhere else to display, it should show the number with two decimal places. For eg: 78.9800 should be displayed as 78.98.
any ideas why this is not happening?
Edit:
Did a little more testing and this seems to be a laravel livewire issue. I am binding data directly to the model property. Because of that, when I edit the field, the accessor is immediately called before validation occurs.
Workaround:
I canceled the data binding to the model property. This solved the issue.
Still is there a better way to use laravel-livewire data binding to model property and use an accssor that would not override the validation rule.
I have a scope on my Supplier model that returns results where active = true.
This works great when creating new entries, as I only want the user to see active suppliers.
Current entries may have an inactive supplier; When I edit it, I want to see all active Suppliers, plus the current supplier (if it is inactive)
I have this code in my controller:
$suppliers = Supplier::active()->get();
if (!$suppliers->contains('id', $record->supplier->id))
{
$suppliers->add(Supplier::find($record->supplier->id));
}
Two questions: Is this the correct way to do this? Should this code be in my controller or should I have it somewhere else? (perhaps a scope but I wouldn't know how to code that).
Edit:
Thanks for the help guys. I have applied advice from each of the answers and refactored my code into a new scope:
public function scopeActiveIncluding($query, Model $model = null)
{
$query->where('active', 1);
if ($model && !$model->supplier->active)
{
$query->orWhere('id', $model->supplier->id);
}
}
What you've written will work, but the Collection::contains function can potentially be pretty slow if the collection is large.
Since you have the id, I would probably make the following change:
$suppliers = Supplier::active()->get();
$supplier = Supplier::find($record->supplier->id);
if (!$supplier->active) {
$suppliers->add($supplier);
}
Of course, the downside to this is that you may be making an unnecessary query on the database.
So you have to consider:
is the record's supplier more likely to be active or inactive?
is the size of the collection of active suppliers large enough to justify another (potentially wasted) call to the database?
Make the choice that makes the most sense, based on what you know of your application's data.
As for the second question, if you will only need this specific set of suppliers in this one part of your application, then the controller is a good place for this code.
If, however, you will need this particular set of suppliers in other parts of your application, you should probably move this code elsewhere. In that case, it might make sense to create a function on the the related model (whatever type $record is...) that returns that model's suppliers set. Something like:
public function getSuppliers()
{
$suppliers = Supplier::active()->get();
$supplier = $this->supplier;
if (!$supplier->active) {
$suppliers->add($supplier);
}
return $suppliers;
}
I saw #Vince's answer about 1st question, and I'm agree with him.
About 2nd question:
Write scope in Supplier model like this:
public function scopeActive($query){
$query->where('active', 1); // for boolean type
}
For good practice, you need to write the logic parts in services like "App\Services\SupplierService.php". And there write the function you want:
public function activeSuppliersWithCurrent($record) {
$suppliers = Supplier::active()->get();
$supplier = Supplier::find($record->supplier->id);
if (!$supplier->active) {
$suppliers->add($supplier);
}
}
In your SupplierController's constructor inject the instance of that service and use the function, for example:
use App\Servives\SupplierService;
protected $supplierService = null;
public function __construct(SupplierService $supplierService) {
$this->supplierService = $supplierService;
}
public function getActiveSuppliersWithCurrent(...) {
$result = $this->supplierService->activeSuppliersWithCurrent($record);
}
As you can see, later you will not need to change anything in controller. If you'll need to change for example the query of suppliers selection, you will just have to change something only in service. This way will make your code blocks separated and shorter.
Also the sense for this pattern: you don't need to access the models from controller. All logic related with models will implemented in services.
For other projects you can grab only services or only controllers, and implement another part differently. But in that case if you had all codes in controller, that will prevent you to grab the portions of necessary codes, cuz may you don't remember what doing each blocks...
You could add a where clause to the query to also find that id.
$suppliers = Supplier::active()->orWhere('id', $record->supplier->id)->get();
You could potentially slide this into the active scope by passing the 'id' as an argument.
public function scopeActive($query, $id = null)
{
$query->where('active', true);
if ($id) {
$query->orWhere('id', $id);
}
}
Supplier::active($record->supplier->id)->get();
Or make another scope that does this.
This may seem like a trivial question, however all of the obvious solutions that I can think of have their own flaws.
What we want is to be able to set any default ActiveRecord attribute value for new records only, in a way that makes it readable before and during validation and does not interfere with derived classes used for search.
The default values need to be set and ready as soon as we instantiate the class, so that (new MyModel)->attr returns the default attr value.
Here are some of the possibilities and the problems they have:
A) In MyModel override the init() method and assign default value when isNewRecord is true like so:
public function init() {
if ($this->isNewRecord) {
$this->attr = 'defaultValue';
}
parent::init();
}
Problem: Search. Unless we explicitly unset our default attribute in MySearchModel (very error-prone because it is too easy to forget), this will also set the value before calling search() in the derived MySearchModel class and interfere with searching (the attr attribute will already be set so search will be returning incorrect results). In Yii1.1 this was resolved by calling unsetAttributes() before calling search(), however no such method exists in Yii2.
B) In MyModel override the beforeSave() method like so:
public function beforeSave($insert) {
if ($insert) {
$this->attr = 'defaultValue';
}
return parent::beforeSave();
}
Problem: Attribute is not set in unsaved records. (new MyModel)->attr is null. Worse yet, even other validation rules that rely on this value will not be able to access it, because beforeSave() is called after validation.
C) To ensure the value is available during validation we can instead override the beforeValidate() method and set the default values there like so:
public function beforeValidate() {
if ($this->isNewRecord) {
$this->attr = 'defaultValue';
}
return parent::beforeValidate();
}
Problem: Attribute is still not set in unsaved (unvalidated) records. We need to at least call $model->validate() if we want to get the default value.
D) Use DefaultValidator in rules() to set a default attribute value during validation like so:
public function rules() {
return [
[
'attr', 'default',
'value' => 'defaultValue',
'on' => 'insert', // instantiate model with this scenario
],
// ...
];
}
Problem: Same as B) and C). Value is not set until we actually save or validate the record.
So what is the right way to set default attribute values? Is there any other way without the outlined problems?
There's two ways to do this.
$model => new Model();
Now $model has all the default attributes from the database table.
Or in your rules you can use:
[['field_name'], 'default', 'value'=> $defaultValue],
Now $model will always be created with the default values you specified.
You can see a full list of core validators here http://www.yiiframework.com/doc-2.0/guide-tutorial-core-validators.html
This is a hangup with Yii's bloated multi-purpose ActiveRecords
In my humble opinion the form models, active records, and search models would be better off split into separate classes/subclasses
Why not split your search models and form models?
abstract class Creature extends ActiveRecord {
...
}
class CreatureForm extends Creature {
public function init() {
parent::init();
if ($this->isNewRecord) {
$this->number_of_legs = 4;
}
}
}
class CreatureSearch extends Creature {
public function search() {
...
}
}
The benefits of this approach are
You can easily cater for different validation, set up and display cases without resorting to a bunch of ifs and switches
You can still keep common code in the parent class to avoid repetition
You can make changes to each subclass without worrying about how it will affect the other
The individual classes don't need to know about the existence of any of their siblings/children to function correctly
In fact, in our most recent project, we are using search models that don't extend from the related ActiveRecord at all
I know it is answered but I will add my approach.
I have Application and ApplicationSearch models. In Application model I add init with a check of the current instance. If its ApplicationSearch I skip initializations.
public function init()
{
if(!$this instanceof ApplicationSearch)
{
$this->id = hash('sha256', 123);
}
parent::init();
}
also as #mae commented below you can check for existence of search method in current instance, assuming you didn't add any method with name search to the non-search base model so the code becomes:
public function init()
{
// no search method is available in Gii generated Non search class
if(!method_exists($this,'search'))
{
$this->id = hash('sha256', 123);
}
parent::init();
}
I've read your question several times and I think there are some contradictions.
You want the defaults to be readable before and during validation and then you try init() or beforeSave(). So, assuming you just want to set the default values in the model so they can be present during the part of the life cycle as long as possible and not interfere with the derived classes, simply set them after initialising the object.
You can prepare separate method where all defaults are set and call it explicitly.
$model = new Model;
$model->setDefaultValues();
Or you can create static method to create model with all default values set and return the instance of it.
$model = Model::createNew();
Or you can pass default values to constructor.
$model = new Model([
'attribute1' => 'value1',
'attribute2' => 'value2',
]);
This is not much different from setting the attributes directly.
$model = new Model;
$model->attribute1 = 'value1';
$model->attribute2 = 'value2';
Everything depends on how much transparent would you like your model be to your controller.
This way attributes are set for the whole life cycle except the direct initialisation and it's not interfering with derived search model.
Just override __construct() method in your model like this:
class MyModel extends \yii\db\ActiveRecord {
function __construct(array $config = [])
{
parent::__construct($config);
$this->attr = 'defaultValue';
}
...
}
If you want to load default value from database you can put this code in your model
public function init()
{
parent::init();
if(!method_exists($this,'search')) //for checking this code is on model search or not
{
$this->loadDefaultValues();
}
}
You can prepare separate method where all defaults are set and call it explicitly.
$model = new Model;
if($model->isNewRecord())
$model->setDefaultValues();
Is there any way to prompt for validation with the attribute's label assigned via ActiveForm?
For instance I have a model attribute amount and the label defined in its attributeLabels function is "Amount"
But while generating form I neeed the label "Fees" so:
$form->field($model, 'amount')->textInput(['maxlength' => true])->label('Fees')
After validation it prompts me "Amount cannot be blank" - it is known to me that we can write a rule to change message but according to my requirements, same attribute (from same model) is having different labels on different forms.
I know that back-end implementation of default message uses:
'message' => '{attribute} cannot be blank.' does anyone know if there is any {x} by which the assigned label in ActiveForm can be retrieved?
PS: I know that this problem can be resolved by scenarios. But it would be hectic to write rule for every field which has dual label.
There is no such way, sorry! What you are doing is overriding the label within the view. Actually within the form to be more precise. If you check out what the label()-method does, you will see that it calls activeLabel() from the Html-helper. This method in turn renders your label and returns the code.
As you can see, none of this information gets written back to the model. Therefore, during the validation process, you won't have your new label at hand, because it never makes its way into the model.
Your cleanest option is the one you mentioned already. Use scenarios to decide which validation rule (and therefore message) to use. OR you could create your own public property in which you write your temporary label like so:
class MyModel extends \yii\db\ActiveRecord
{
public $myTempLabel;
public function attributeLabels()
{
$myLabel = $this->myTempLabel === null ? Yii::t('app', 'defaultLabel') : $this->myTempLabel;
return [
//other labels...
'myField'=>$myLabel,
//other labels...
];
}
}
In your view you can then set the value back into the attribute within your model.
Sorry for not being able to help better, but that's the way it's implemented!
What you need to do is handle the label changing logic in your attributeLabels() function.
class MyModel extends \yii\base\Model {
public $amount_label = 'amount';
public function attributeLabels() {
return [
'amount' => $this->amount_label
];
}
}
Then in your controller.
$model = new MyModel;
$model->amount_label = 'fees';
...
Of course you may want to set the label in a different way. For example, if your model as a type attribute, and this is the attribute which determines the label, you could do a conditional based on that type attribute.