i do my first steps in CI4.
Is there a way to define a modell into a controller for each functions of a controller one at one time?
At the moment i have to add the modell for each function as new like this
public function myfunction(){
$myModel = new \App\Models\MyModel();
}
public function myfunction_two(){
$myModel = new \App\Models\MyModel();
}
...
Update
Based on the answear i try this
class controllertwo extends BaseController
{
private $myModel;
public function __construct()
{
//Add some Models we need in this controller?
$this->myModel= new \App\Models\myModel();
//$this->myModel= new myModel();
}
...
The Codeigniter Errorconsole said "Use of undefined constant int - assumed 'int' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) " and markes this line "$this->myModel= new \App\Models\myModel();"
What i do wrong? Or is it not the best way to include a modell for all functions inside a controller?
You can declare it as a private variable in the controller as follow :
private $model;
Then set it in the constructor as follow:
public function __construct()
{
$this->model = new \App\Models\MyModel();
}
Then simply refer to them in your methods as below:
public function myfunction(){
$this->model ...
}
public function myfunction_two(){
$this->model ...
}
Related
I'm looking to use the sluggerInterface in a class. But I want to keep:
public function __construct()
{
}
So I want to use sluggerInterface in my class without adding any argument in my constructor. (this is in order to automatically create 1 slug when creating an object).
So I want a code different from this one:
use Symfony\Component\String\Slugger\SluggerInterface;
class MyService
{
private $slugger;
public function __construct(SluggerInterface $slugger)
{
$this->slugger = $slugger;
}
public function someMethod()
{
$slug = $this->slugger->slug('...');
}
}
Thank you !
You do not want to use autowiring in your constructor ?
You could just create a new slugger, for example with Symfony\Component\String\Slugger\AsciiSlugger;
$slugger = new AsciiSlugger();
$slugger->slug('Please slug this.')->toString();
Or you could also use autowiring with another method using #required annotation (or attribute #[Required] for PHP 8+)
private $slugger;
#[Required]
public function setSlugger(SluggerInterface $slugger): void
{
$this->slugger= $slugger;
}
this is in order to automatically create 1 slug when creating an object
You may also want to look into event listener, using doctrine event prePersist to slug your entity when persisted could be another idea.
Finally, gedmo doctrine-extensions sluggable may interest you as well.
How to call "functionA" from "ClassA" in "functionB" inside "ClassB" ?
class Base extends BaseController
{
public function header()
{
echo view('common/header');
echo view('common/header-nav');
}
}
class Example extends BaseController
{
public function myfunction()
// how to call function header from base class
return view('internet/swiatlowod');
}
}
Well there are many ways to do this...
One such way, might be like...
Assume that example.php is the required Frontend so we will need a route to it.
In app\Config\Routes.php we need the entry
$routes->get('/example', 'Example::index');
This lets us use the URL your-site dot com/example
Now we need to decide how we want to use the functions in Base inside Example. So we could do the following...
<?php namespace App\Controllers;
class Example extends BaseController {
protected $base;
/**
* This is the main entry point for this example.
*/
public function index() {
$this->base = new Base(); // Create an instance
$this->myfunction();
}
public function myfunction() {
echo $this->base->header(); // Output from header
echo view('internet/swiatlowod'); // Output from local view
}
}
When and where you use new Base() is up to you, but you need to use before you need it (obviously).
You could do it in a constructor, you could do it in a parent class and extend it so it is common to a group of controllers.
It's up to you.
I've got this compiletime errors when I make some class implement an interface with properties that have been fromerly defined in some native sub class, like openfl.display.Sprite. It occurs when I'm targeting flash, not js.
Field get_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Field set_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Field someValue has different property access than in SomeInterface (var should be (get,set))
In contrast, there's no problem with interface definitions of 'native' methods or 'non-native' properties. Those work.
Do I have to avoid that (not so typical) use of interfaces with haxe and rewrite my code? Or is there any way to bypass this problem?
Thanks in advance.
Example:
class NativePropertyInterfaceImplTest
{
public function new()
{
var spr:FooSprite = new FooSprite();
spr.visible = !spr.visible;
}
}
class FooSprite extends Sprite implements IFoo
{
public function new()
{
super();
}
}
interface IFoo
{
public var visible (get, set):Bool; // Cannot use this ):
}
TL;DR
You need to use a slightly different signature on the Flash target:
interface IFoo
{
#if flash
public var visible:Bool;
#else
public var visible (get, set):Bool;
#end
}
Additional Information
Haxe get and set imply that get_property():T and set_property(value:T):T both exist. OpenFL uses this syntax for many properties, including displayObject.visible.
Core ActionScript VM classes (such as Sprite) don't use Haxe get/set, but are native properties. This is why they look different.
Overriding Core Properties
If you ever need to override core properties like this, here is an example of how you would do so for both Flash and other targets on OpenFL:
class CustomSprite extends Sprite {
private var _visible:Bool = true;
public function new () {
super ();
}
#if flash
#:getter(visible) private function get_visible ():Bool { return _visible; }
#:setter(visible) private function set_visible (value:Bool):Void { _visible = value; }
#else
private override function get_visible ():Bool { return _visible; }
private override function set_visible (value:Bool):Bool { return _visible = value; }
#end
}
Overriding Custom Properties
This is not needed for custom properties, which are the same on all platforms:
class BaseClass {
public var name (default, set):String;
public function new () {
}
private function set_name (value:String) {
return this.name = value;
}
}
class SuperClass {
public function new () {
super ();
}
private override function set_name (value:String):String {
return this.name = value + " Q. Public";
}
}
Need to provide the method signatures in an Interface. Currently its just a property declaration.
The error message is saying it all.
Field get_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Field set_someValue needed by SomeInterface is missing
Hopefully that helps.
I am using Unity as IOC and trying to inject an interface with a factory method which takes a interface as a parameter.
For some reason the configReader parameter in the factory method GetTitleParser(), is null and not getting the injected ConfigurationReader() instance.
When i place a debug point at the line in RegisterTypes method where the new InjectionFactory exists, ITitleParser is not showing as mapped to a proper mapped type.
can anyone help what am i doing wrong here?
Here is my code:
public class UnityContainerBuilder
{
public static IUnityContainer Build()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
container.LoadConfiguration();
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c => ParserFactory.GetTitleParser()));
}
}
public class ParserFactory
{
public static ITitleParser GetTitleParser(IConfigurationReader configReader=null)
{
if(configReader==null) configReader = new ConfigurationReader();
/* rest of code here...*/
return parser;
}
}
It works when i use the following code. Is this the right way to do this?
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var configReader = c.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>();
var parser = ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(configReader);
return parser;
}));
When you use default parameters it's equal to:
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(
new InjectionFactory(c => ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(null)));
Because, compiler inserts all default values in method calls (null in your case).
So, your code is valid:
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser>(new InjectionFactory(c =>
{
var configReader = c.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>();
var parser = ParserFactory.GetTitleParser(configReader);
return parser;
}));
But i advice you to remove default value to make code more expressive.
Your code is valid but maybe you can avoid messing up with InjectionFactory parameters and ParserFactory.
public class UnityContainerBuilder
{
public static IUnityContainer Build()
{
var container = new UnityContainer();
RegisterTypes(container);
return container;
}
public static void RegisterTypes(IUnityContainer container)
{
// NOTE: To load from web.config uncomment the line below. Make sure to add a Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration to the using statements.
container.LoadConfiguration();
container.RegisterType<IConfigurationReader, ConfigurationReader>();
container.RegisterInstance<IAppConfig>(container.Resolve<IConfigurationReader>().ReadConfiguration());
container.RegisterType<ITitleParser, TitleParser>();
}
}
public class AppConfig: IAppConfig
{
public AppConfig(){}
//value1 property
//value2 property
//etc
}
public class ConfigurationReader: IConfigurationReader
{
public ConfigurationReader(){}
public IAppConfig ReadConfiguration(){
var currentConfig = new AppConfig();
//read config from file, DB, etc and init currentCongif
return currentConfig;
}
}
public class TitleParser : ITitleParser
{
public TitleParser(IAppConfif)
{
//config already readed, just do the work
}
}
Could someone please explain what is the difference in Haxe syntax when it comes to functions and variables.
public var theName;
vs
static public var theName;
or
static private var theName;
vs
private var theName;
and same for function for ex.
static private function(){} vs private function(){}
There are two scopes
static
which refers to the class. That is that it can be referenced by the class reference and the name.
ClassName.reference();
would be:
class ClassName{
static public function reference(){
return "hello world";
}
}
And the other, which refers to a class instance constructed using the new operator.
new ClassName().reference();
Which would be:
class ClassName{
public function new(){
//We need a constructor.
}
public function reference(){
return "hello world"
}
The other is a choice:
public / private
refers to the availability of the reference outside of the type scope.
private function reference(){
return "hello world";
}
Would only be available when called where the this variable refers to the class instance in question. so: this.reference() compiles but new ClassName().reference() will not.
static private function ....
has a similar effect, in that it is only available where the class is local
class MyClass{
private static function unavailable(){
return "available";
}
public static function available(){
return something();
}
}
class Main(){
static public function main(){
MyClass.unavaliable()//will not compile
MyClass.available()//good to go.
}
}
static : the field belongs to the Class itself and not to instances of this class. Static identifiers can be used directly in the class itself. Outside of the class, it must be used with the class name (for example : my.pack.MyClass.name).
http://old.haxe.org/ref/oop