Dependency Injection

Events and Dependency Injection

 

The Laravel podcast folks mentioned a backlash about firing events in controllers, and I would guess those arguments were based on the notion that events can be used as a sneaky way of using global dependencies. Depending on the design of the event system, the party firing the event can access resources returned by event listeners, and this pattern can be abused like a service locator.

If you allow events to return resources and to be called within a component, you don’t really know a component’s real dependencies without reading the source code. Not at all does this imply you shouldn’t do it, but just that there are trade-offs anytime you reach out for undeclared dependencies at runtime.

What might give the best of both worlds is a way of injecting a dispatcher limited to a single event. E.g. make a class that triggers a particular event and depend on that. This would be best baked into the language similar to generics, so reflection could determine the event(s) needed without a bunch of boilerplate single-event objects.

What, when, and how is your IDE telling you?

 

A programmers.stackexchange question basically asks if there’s an ideal frequency to compile your code. Surely not, as it completely depends on what kind of work you’re doing and how much focus you need at any given moment; breaking to ask for feedback is not necessarily a good idea if you’re plan is solid and you’re in the zone.

But a related topic is more interesting to me: What’s the ideal form of automated information flow from IDE to programmer?

IDEs can now potentially compile/lint/run static analysis on your code with every keystroke. I’m reminded of that when writing new Java code in NetBeans. “OMG the method you started writing two seconds ago doesn’t have the correct return type!!!” You don’t say. And I’ve used an IDE that dumped a huge distracting compiler message in the middle of the code due to a simple syntax error that I could’ve easily dealt with a bit later. I vaguely remember one where the feedback interfered with my typing!

So on one side of the spectrum the IDE could be needling you, dragging you out of the zone, but you do want to know about real problems at some point. Maybe the ideal notification model is progressive, starting out very subtle then becoming more obvious as time passes or it becomes clear you’re moving away from that line.

Anyone seen any unique work in this area?

Stepping back to the notion of when to stop and see if your program works, I think the trifecta of dependency injection, sufficiently strong typing, and solid IDE static analysis has really made a huge difference in this for me. Assuming my design makes sense, I find the bugs tend to be caught in the IDE so that programs are more solid by the time I get to the slower—and more disruptive to flow—cycle of manual testing. YMMV!

Dependency Injection: Ask For What You Need

 

Despite the scary name, the concept is simple: Your class or function should ask for dependencies upfront. It should not reach out for them. This gives you a few powerful advantages:

1. In unit tests you can pass in mock dependencies to verify/fake behavior.

Imagine your class depends on a database. You really don’t want to require a live database to run your tests, but also you want to be able to test a variety of responses from the database without running a bunch of setup queries. What if your logic depends on the time being around 3AM? You can’t reliably test this if your object pulls time from the environment.

2. Your API doesn’t lie to users about what’s really required to use it.

Imagine if you started cooking a recipe and step 7 read, “Go buy 10 mangos now.” Imagine a Skydive class whose jump() method waited 10 seconds then executed Backpack.getInstance().getParachute.deploy(). “Umm, I’m in the air and the Skydive class didn’t tell me I’d need a backpack…”. Skydive should have required a parachute in the constructor.

3. Your API behaves more predictably.

Imagine a function getNumDays(month). If I pass in February, I usually get 28, but sometimes 29! This is because there’s a hidden dependency on the current year. This function would be useless for processing old data.

Baking the dependencies in

Note that the same principles apply to functions (fine for this exercise, but you should avoid global functions/static methods for all sorts of reasons). Consider this function for baking peanut butter cookies:

function makePBCookies(AlbertsonsPB $pb) {
  // ... 20 lines of setup code
  $egg = new LargePublixEgg();
  $sugar = new DixieSugar('1 cup');
  $chef = Yelp::find('chef');
  // create an oven
  // mix and bake for 10 min
  return $cookies;
}

From the argument list, it isn’t clear you’ll need a large Publix egg on hand. What if you don’t have a Publix in your area? What if you want less sugary cookies? Let’s refactor:

function makePBCookies(Egg $egg, Sugar $sugar, PB $pb) {
  // ... 20 lines of setup code
  $chef = Yelp::find('chef');
  // create an oven
  // mix and bake for 10 min
  return $cookies;
}

Now it’s immediately clear at the top what ingredients you’ll need; you can use any brands you want; and you can even change amounts/sizes to yield all kinds of flavors. This is really flexible, but we can make it even better:

function makePBCookies(Egg $egg, Sugar $sugar, PB $pb, Oven $oven, Chef $chef) {
  $mix = $chef->mix(array($egg, $sugar, $pb));
  return $chef->bake($oven, $mix);
}

In case it wasn’t obvious, it’s now clear we’ll need a chef and oven, and it makes good sense to outsource the oven design because this logic isn’t really specific to peanut butter cookies. A sign that our refactoring is going well is that the function body is starting to read more like a narrative.

Let’s build the ultimate cookie-making function:

function makeCookies(BakeList $list, Chef $chef, Oven $oven, Decorations $decs = null) {
  // BakeList is a composite of recipe & ingredients
  $mix = $chef->mix($list->getIngredients(), $list->getRecipe());
  $cookies = $chef->bake($oven, $mix);
  if ($decs) {
    $cookies = $chef->decorate($cookies, $decs);
  }
  return $cookies;
}

We’ve refactored into several easy-to-test components, each with a specific task. This function is also easy to test because we just need to verify how the dependencies are passed and what methods are called on them. If we wanted to go even further we might notice that cookies come out differently in Denver vs. NYC (there’s a hidden dependency on altitude).

But that’s all dependency injection is: asking for what you need and not relying on sniffing dependencies from the environment. It makes code more flexible, more reusable, and more testable. It’s awesome.

I highly recommend Miško Hevery’s 2008 talks about dependency injection and testability, which really solidified the concepts and their importance for me. [This is an improved version of an article I wrote around that time hosted elsewhere.]

Decouple User and App State From the Session

 

When building software components, you want them to be usable in any situation, and especially inside other web apps. The user of your component should be able to inject the user ID and other app state without side effects, and similarly be able to pull that state out after use.

That’s why, beyond all the standard advice (GRASP SOLID), you’d be wise to avoid tight coupling with PHP Sessions.

PHP’s native1 session is the worst kind of singleton.

It’s accessible everywhere; modifiable by anyone; and, because there’s no way to get the save handlers, there’s no way to safely close an open session, use it for your own purposes, and reopen it with all the original state. Effectively only one system can use it while it’s open.

The Take Home

  • Provide an API to allow injecting/requesting user and application state into/from your component.
  • Isolate session use in a “state persister” subcomponent that can be swapped out/disabled, ideally at any time during use.

1Shameless plug: I created UserlandSession, as a native session replacement. You can use multiple at the same time, and there’s no global state2 nor visibility. This is not to suggest that you use it in place of native sessions, but it’s available in a pinch or for experimentation.

2Yes, I know cookies and headers are global state. UserlandSession is not meant to solve all your problems, pal.

Perks of Life in the Kingdom of Nouns

 

Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns is one of Steve Yegge’s most entertaining posts about the verbosity and noun-centricity of Java (and other strongly typed languages without first-class functions). His post paints a picture of life outside JavaLand, where things are simpler and more straightforward:

There’s rarely any need in these kingdoms to create wrapper nouns to swaddle the verbs. They don’t have GarbageDisposalStrategy nouns, nor GarbageDisposalDestinationLocator nouns for finding your way to the garage, nor PostGarbageActionCallback nouns for putting you back on your couch. They just write the verbs to operate on the nouns lying around, and then have a master verb, take_out_garbage(), that springs the subtasks to action in just the right order.

With simplicity, there’s always a tradeoff. How does one test that take_out_garbage() actually works? You’ll need a full environment with real nouns lying around and all you can do is check the environment after completion. In the Kingdom of Nouns, you can pass in mock nouns and carefully watch what the function does with them. Maybe it’s important that the recycling gets separated, but if you only check the end environment, you won’t be able to tell it wasn’t.

What if trash day is moved to a different day? You might need a new take_out_garbage_wednesday(). As ridiculous as it seems, passing in a GarbageDestination makes the chore more flexible and testable. During testing I can pass in a destination of “right here”, saving me the hassle of creating an environment that includes the walkway out to the curb.

Whether you’re executing global/static functions or class methods, being able to pass dependencies in (where to find the trash, where it goes, when is it supposed to be there) not only makes your function more flexible, but more testable to boot.

This is not to suggest that Steve’s post was anti-dependency injection. I get the impression it was more a frustration of the expressive limitations of Java (when he wrote it—I think it has lambdas now). You can do dependency injection just fine without concrete classes, of course, but you wouldn’t want someone to pass in an array of GPS coordinates when you really need an object that you could call getStreetAddress() on. Type hinting an AddressProvider in the argument would let end users know exactly what to pass in and let the compiler/runtime know not to even bother executing the function, because we don’t have what we need. Also type hinted arguments allow good IDEs to prevent you from making mistakes, or to autocomplete existing variables in scope matching that type.

Miško Hevery Programming Talks

 

Miško Hevery gave several presentations at Google last year that are worth checking out, I think even if you’re familiar with Dependency Injections and unit testing. They cover the ways that global state can sneak into applications, how undeclared dependencies make classes harder to test and reuse, and how DI in general eases a lot of pain. He’s just a good teacher and the examples are clear and made me want to attack a lot of old code. Hig blog also covers a lot of the same topics.