I'm using Basset 4 to manage assets.
In the config file i'm declaring a collection 'admin'
return array(
'collections' => array(
'admin' => function($collection)
{
$collection->directory('assets/js', function($collection)
{
$collection->add('vendor/jquery-1.9.1.min.js');
});
},
),
...
)
later in a view, I would like to add an extra file in admin collection.
I've try the following code, but it doesn't work:
Basset::collection('admin', function($collection)
{
$collection->add('function.js');
});
Is there a way to add file into a collection from a view or from a controller?
Thank you
Basset isn't really designed to work like that. You should be defining all your assets within that initial call, even though the ability to add assets throughout the execution of an application is possible, it's not recommended.
When building a collection assets that are added for a particular route won't be available to the builder since Artisan doesn't fire any routes, etc.
Adjusting a collection in numerous places can often lead to confusion further down the line.
I know this isn't ideal as you're probably looking at implementing page specific JavaScript, correct? I've thought about it but can't really think of a clean solution (suggestions?), although I've heard of people assigning a unique ID to the body or perhaps some classes that their JavaScript can then attach themselves to.
It's not brilliant but that's the best I can give you at the moment.
Related
I'm using Laravel for my project and I'm new to unit/feature testing so I was wondering what is the best way to approach more complicated feature cases when writing tests?
Let's take this test example:
// tests/Feature/UserConnectionsTest.php
public function testSucceedIfConnectAuthorised()
{
$connection = factory(Connection::class)->make([
'sender_id' => 1,
'receiver_id' => 2,
'accepted' => false,
'connection_id' => 5,
]);
$user = factory(User::class)->make([
'id' => 1,
]);
$response = $this->actingAs($user)->post(
'/app/connection-request/accept',
[
'accept' => true,
'request_id' => $connection->id,
]
);
$response->assertLocation('/')->assertStatus(200);
}
So we've got this situation where we have some connection system between two users. There is a Connection entry in the DB created by one of the users. Now to make it a successful connection the second user has to approve it. The problem is within the UserController accepting this through connectionRequest:
// app/Http/Controllers/Frontend/UserController.php
public function connectionRequest(Request $request)
{
// we check if the user isn't trying to accept the connection
// that he initiated himself
$connection = $this->repository->GetConnectionById($request->get('request_id'));
$receiver_id = $connection->receiver_id;
$current_user_id = auth()->user()->id;
if ($receiver_id !== $current_user_id) {
abort(403);
}
[...]
}
// app/Http/Repositories/Frontend/UserRepository.php
public function GetConnectionById($id)
{
return Connection::where('id', $id)->first();
}
So we've got this fake (factory created) connection in the test function and then we unfortunately are using its fake id to run a check within the real DB among real connections, which is not what we want :(
Researching I found an idea of creating interfaces so then we can provide a different method bodies depending if we're testing or not. Like here for GetConnectionById() making it easy to fake answers to for the testing case. And that seems OK, but:
for one it looks like a kind of overhead, besides writing tests I have to make the "real" code more complicated itself for the sole purpose of testing.
and second thing, I read all that Laravel documentation has to say about testing, and there is no one place where they mention using of interfaces, so that makes me wonder too if that's the only way and the best way of solving this problem.
I will try to help you, when someone start with testing it is not easy at all, specially if you don't have a strong framework (or even a framework at all).
So, let me try help you:
It is really important to differentiate Unit testing vs Feature testing. You are correctly using Feature test, because you want to test business logic instead of a class directly.
When you test, my personal recommendation is always create a second DB to only use with tests. It must be completely empty all the time.
So, for you to achieve this, you have to define the correct environment variables in phpunit.xml, so you don't have to do magic for this to work when you only run tests.
Also, use RefreshDatabase trait. So, each time you run a test, it is going to delete everything, migrate your tables again and run the test.
You should always create what you need to have as mandatory for your test to run. For example, if you are testing if a user can cancel an order he/she created, you only need to have a product, a user and an invoice associated with the product and user. You do not need to have notifications created or anything not related to this. You must have what you expect to have in the real case scenario, but nothing extra, so you can truly test that it fully works with the minimum stuff.
You can run seeders if your setup is "big", so you should be using setup method.
Remember to NEVER mock core code, like request or controllers or anything similar. If you are mocking any of these, you are doing something wrong. (You will learn this with experience, once you truly know how to test).
When you write tests names, remember to never use if and must and similar wording, instead use when and should. For example, your test testSucceedIfConnectAuthorised should be named testShouldSucceedWhenConnectAuthorised.
This tip is super personal: do not use RepositoryPattern in Laravel, it is an anti-pattern. It is not the worst thing to use, but I recommend having a Service class (do not confuse with a Service Provider, the class I mean is a normal class, it is still called Service) to achieve what you want. But still, you can google about this and Laravel and you will see everyone discourages this pattern in Laravel.
One last tip, Connection::where('id', $id)->first() is exactly the same as Connection::find($id).
I forgot to add that, you should always hardcode your URLs (like you did in your test) because if you rely on route('url.name') and the name matches but the real URL is /api/asdasdasd, you will never test that the URL is the one you want. So congrats there ! A lot of people do not do this and that is wrong.
So, to help you in your case, I will assume you have a clear database (database without tables, RefreshDatabase trait will handle this for you).
I would have your first test as this:
public function testShouldSucceedWhenConnectAuthorised()
{
/**
* I have no idea how your relations are, but I hope
* you get the main idea with this. Just create what
* you should expect to have when you have this
* test case
*/
$connection = factory(Connection::class)->create([
'sender_id' => factory(Sender::class)->create()->id,
'receiver_id' => factory(Reciever::class)->create()->id,
'accepted' => false,
'connection_id' => factory(Connection::class)->create()->id,
]);
$response = $this->actingAs(factory(User::class)->create())
->post(
'/app/connection-request/accept',
[
'accept' => true,
'request_id' => $connection->id
]
);
$response->assertLocation('/')
->assertOk();
}
Then, you should not change anything except phpunit.xml environment variables pointing to your testing DB (locally) and it should work without you changing anything in your code.
After some searching, I succesfully installed the Authority-l4 package to use for my Laravel project. The docs are clear but small (not much info/examples). This is what my config file looks like atm:
return array[
'initialize' => function($authority) {
$user = $authority->getCurrentUser();
$authority->addAlias('manage', ['create', 'read', 'update', 'delete']);
if($user->hasRole('admin')) {
//Admin can manage all resources
$authority->allow('manage', 'all');
}
// User can manage his own post
Authority::allow('manage', 'User', function($self, $user){
return $self->getCurrentUser()->id === $user->id;
});
// User can manage his own post
Authority::allow('manage', 'Post', function($self, $post){
return $self->getCurrentUser()->id === $post->id;
});
}
];
I have some questions about this:
How to add a role to a user? hasRole() exists, why not setRole()?
I noticed nothing gets saved into the database, isn't this better?
How do I use my database with Authority? Could someone give me a head start, I've been strugling four hours now.
In some articles they say that the class Role should be changed to have many permissions instead of a user having many permissions, isn't this better?
Probably I'm thinking way to difficult about this package, searching the internet doesn't help either. Any help is appreciated!
I'm the author of Authority, and I maintain Authority-l4 though it was written primarily by Conar Welsh.
Since roles, as defined in the package, are just an Eloquent relation so you can simply add them like any other relation in Eloquent.
I have no idea what you're asking here, can you rephrase?
Can you elaborate on the question beyond what's in the readme (the part just above General Usage)?
Probably - either works. You don't need to use this structure to use Authority-l4. It's just an optional structure that you are 100% free to setup as you'd like. I personally don't use this at all and just use the Authority facade that it generates. Most of my permissions aren't stored in the DB though so that plays a factor.
The idea behind Authority is that it is implementation agnostic. It genuinely does not care where you store your data, you just need to tell authority what to do with your rules. Reading the section of the readme referenced above and the readme on the Authority core repo should be able to give you a general idea of how it expects information to be loaded - anything beyond that is up to your discretion.
I've created a couple of pages they are users, groups and permissions.
I would like the admin to be able to create groups and set what those groups can do via the permissions page.
So on the permissions page I would have a list of things a user could do e.g.: add content, delete content.
And if I check the add content box then the group can only add content and not delete content.
The problem I'm having is that I don't know where to go to look for information on how to go about it. I've already got my database set up and I'm thinking maybe sessions and routes is the way to go, but I'm not sure.
Frameworks is the way to go for something this complex. I'm working on a very similar project for my work (a dashboard to do different things based on User Role/Permissions) and I found it incredibly difficult to manage without the use of a framework. I would highly recommend Cartalyst/Sentry for this. It turns complex database operations like checking permissions, update permissions, creating groups etc into simple one. Here is a link to the manual:
Cartalyst/Sentry
It has a database backend already created (and modifiable) for you, so you simply follow the installation instructions and go over the documentation to get a better understanding. In your example, it would be as simple as creating a group and it's permissions:
// Define permissions (1 is allowed, 0 is not allowed)
$permissions = array('content.create' => 1, 'content.delete' => 1, etc etc...));
$group = Sentry::createGroup(array('name' => 'Admin', 'permissions' => $permissions));
Creating a user and adding them to the group:
$user = Sentry::createUser(array('email' => 'test#test.com', 'first_name' => ..., etc));
$group = Sentry::findGroupByName('Admin');
$user->addGroup($group);
And then checking their permissions during routing:
$user = Sentry::check(); // Aka get the current user.
if($user->hasAccess('content.create'){
// Continue
} else {
// Redirect to error page, etc
}
Now that's a brief overview of the system, and I assume you know how to use controllers and routes, but play around with it and I'm sure you'll come to see how powerful this Framework is when working with Laravel.
Hope that helps!
Then checking whether or not a user
I was just wondering what the best practice approach is for deciding where to create an action/view in certain situations.
If User hasMany Video
where is the best place to create the action/view to show user videos?
So within the Users account page 'My Videos' link do you
just create a users/my_videos action and view.
create videos/my_videos action and view.
or as is most likely you would already have a Controller/Action of videos/index which would have search functionality. Simply use this passing in a user id.
Any thoughts/advice greatly appreciated
Thanks
Leo
One potential option is to do the following:
Since the videos likely have much more code around them than a simple which user has which videos lookup the video list action should be in the VideosController.
In past projects I have (in CakePHP 1.3) used prefix routing to address some of this.
In config/core.php make sure you enable routing.prefixes to include a 'user' prefix.
<?php
... in routes.php ...
Routing.prefixes = array( 'user' );
?>
In the videos controller make an action with the following signature:
<?php
...
public function user_index( $userID = null ){
...
}
?>
and in the views where you link to the list of users videos the html::link call should look similar to the following:
<?php
...
echo $this->Html->link( 'User\'s Videos', array(
'controller' => 'videos',
'action' => 'index',
'prefix' => 'user',
$this->Session->read( 'Auth.User.id' )
));
?>
Of course this assumes you are using the Auth component here to track the logged in user. The Session helper code to read the authenticated user id might need tweaking.
This lets you a) Not worry too much about routing aside from enabling prefix routing and b) will quickly let you have pretty links like so -- site.com/user/videos/index/419
Couple this with some Slug love ( this is the best link for this I have seen - no slug field required on the db layer - http://42pixels.com/blog/slugs-ugly-bugs-pretty-urls )
You could even end up with urls like so quite easily: site.com/user/videos/index/eben-roux
and with just a tiny bit of editing to app/config/routes.php you could eliminate the /index/ portion and the results would be SEO friendly and user friendly in the format:
site.com/user/videos/eben-roux
http://book.cakephp.org/view/945/Routes-Configuration
As always with code you have the two extremes of:
1) Putting everything in a single controller
2) Having every action in a separate controller
The ideal approach will nearly always be somewhere between the two so how to decide what is grouped together and what is separated?
In MVC I tend to look at the Views and see what the commonalities are: as you point out Users have a ref to a collection of Videos in the Model, but would you want both sets of Data in any single View? i.e. In this example is it likely that you would be on a page that both managed user details, and displayed the list of vids? If not then I'd suggest separate controllers.
If either controller would then be extremely simple - e.g. one method, then may be worth considering merging the two.
I like to keeps things separate.
What I'd do is an index action in videos controller, passing user's id as argument and then displaying only current users video.
public function index($id = null){
$this->paginate = array( 'conditions'=> array('Video.user_id' => $id));
$this->set('videos', $this->paginate());
}
My take is that it depends on the responsibility you assign to the controllers.
I would say that something like a User or a Video controller should be concerned with only those entities.
You may want to consider something like a UserDashboard (or something similar but appropriately named) as alluded to by Dunhamzzz in the comments. This can aggegate all the functionality from an "entry" point-of-view. The same way a banner / shortcut / action menu would work.
Your UserDashboard would use whatever data layer / repository is required to get the relevant data (such as the IVideoRepository or IVideoQuery implementation).
Usually when something doesn't feel right it isn't. Try splitting it out and see how it works. You can alsways re-arrange / refactor again later.
Just a thought.
I don't think there's a 'one-rule-fits-all' solution to this question, but I would try to take an approach in which you would determine what the main object is that you're dealing with, and adding the action/view to that object's controller.
In your example I'd say that your main object is a video and that the action you're requiring is a list of video's filtered by a specific property (in this case the user's id, but this could very well be a category, a location, etc.).
One thing I would not do is let your desired URL determine in which controller you put your functionality. URLs are trivially changed with routes.
So, I'm not quite sure how I should structure this in CakePHP to work correctly in the proper MVC form.
Let's, for argument sake, say I have the following data structure which are related in various ways:
Team
Task
Equipment
This is generally how sites are and is quite easy to structure and make in Cake. For example, I would have the a model, controller and view for each item set.
My problem (and I'm sure countless others have had it and already solved it) is that I have a level above the item sets. So, for example:
Department
Team
Task
Equipment
Department
Team
Task
Equipment
Department
Team
Task
Equipment
In my site, I need the ability for someone to view the site at an individual group level as well as move to view it all together (ie, ignore the groups).
So, I have models, views and controls for Depart, Team, Task and Equipment.
How do I structure my site so that from the Department view, someone can select a Department then move around the site to the different views for Team/Task/Equipment showing only those that belong to that particular Department.
In this same format, is there a way to also move around ignoring the department associations?
Hopefully the following example URLs clarifies anything that was unclear:
// View items while disregarding which group-set record they belong to
http://www.example.com/Team/action/id
http://www.example.com/Task/action/id
http://www.example.com/Equipment/action/id
http://www.example.com/Departments
// View items as if only those associated with the selected group-set record exist
http://www.example.com/Department/HR/Team/action/id
http://www.example.com/Department/HR/Task/action/id
http://www.example.com/Department/HR/Equipment/action/id
Can I get the controllers to function in this manner? Is there someone to read so I can figure this out?
Thanks to those that read all this :)
I think I know what you're trying to do. Correct me if I'm wrong:
I built a project manager for myself in which I wanted the URLs to be more logical, so instead of using something like
http://domain.com/project/milestones/add/MyProjectName I could use
http://domain.com/project/MyProjectName/milestones/add
I added a custom route to the end (!important) of my routes so that it catches anything that's not already a route and treats it as a "variable route".
Router::connect('/project/:project/:controller/:action/*', array(), array('project' => '[a-zA-Z0-9\-]+'));
Whatever route you put means that you can't already (or ever) have a controller by that name, for that reason I consider it a good practice to use a singular word instead of a plural. (I have a Projects Controller, so I use "project" to avoid conflicting with it.)
Now, to access the :project parameter anywhere in my app, I use this function in my AppController:
function __currentProject(){
// Finding the current Project's Info
if(isset($this->params['project'])){
App::import('Model', 'Project');
$projectNames = new Project;
$projectNames->contain();
$projectInfo = $projectNames->find('first', array('conditions' => array('Project.slug' => $this->params['project'])));
$project_id = $projectInfo['Project']['id'];
$this->set('project_name_for_layout', $projectInfo['Project']['name']);
return $project_id;
}
}
And I utilize it in my other controllers:
function overview(){
$this->layout = 'project';
// Getting currentProject id from App Controller
$project_id = parent::__currentProject();
// Finding out what time it is and performing queries based on time.
$nowStamp = time();
$nowDate = date('Y-m-d H:i:s' , $nowStamp);
$twoWeeksFromNow = $nowDate + 1209600;
$lateMilestones = $this->Project->Milestone->find('all', array('conditions'=>array('Milestone.project_id' => $project_id, 'Milestone.complete'=> 0, 'Milestone.duedate <'=> $nowDate)));
$this->set(compact('lateMilestones'));
$currentProject = $this->Project->find('all', array('conditions'=>array('Project.slug' => $this->params['project'])));
$this->set(compact('currentProject'));
}
For your project you can try using a route like this at the end of your routes.php file:
Router::connect('/:groupname/:controller/:action/*', array(), array('groupname' => '[a-zA-Z0-9\-]+'));
// Notice I removed "/project" from the beginning. If you put the :groupname first, as I've done in the last example, then you only have one option for these custom url routes.
Then modify the other code to your needs.
If this is a public site, you may want to consider using named variables. This will allow you to define the group on the URL still, but without additional functionality requirements.
http://example.com/team/group:hr
http://example.com/team/action/group:hr/other:var
It may require custom routes too... but it should do the job.
http://book.cakephp.org/view/541/Named-parameters
http://book.cakephp.org/view/542/Defining-Routes
SESSIONS
Since web is stateless, you will need to use sessions (or cookies). The question you will need to ask yourself is how to reflect the selection (or not) of a specific department. It could be as simple as putting a drop down selection in the upper right that reflects ALL, HR, Sales, etc. When the drop down changes, it will set (or clear) the Group session variable.
As for the functionality in the controllers, you just check for the Session. If it is there, you limit the data by the select group. So you would use the same URLs, but the controller or model would manage how the data gets displayed.
// for all functionality use:
http://www.example.com/Team/action/id
http://www.example.com/Task/action/id
http://www.example.com/Equipment/action/id
You don't change the URL to accommodate for the functionality. That would be like using a different URL for every USER wanting to see their ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER, or BILLING INFO. Where USER would be the group and ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER< and BILLING INFO would be the item sets.
WITHOUT SESSIONS
The other option would be to put the Group filter on each page. So for example on Team/index view you would have a group drop down to filter the data. It would accomplish the same thing without having to set and clear session variables.
The conclusion is and the key thing to remember is that the functionality does not change nor does the URLs. The only thing that changes is that you will be working with filtered data sets.
Does that make sense?