Auto Setting the "owner"
Keep on Learning!
If you liked what you've learned so far, dive in! Subscribe to get access to this tutorial plus video, code and script downloads.
With a Subscription, click any sentence in the script to jump to that part of the video!
Login SubscribeEvery DragonTreasure must have an owner... and to set that, when you POST to create a treasure, we require that field. I think we should make that optional. So, in the test, stop sending the owner field:
| // ... lines 1 - 12 | |
| class DragonTreasureResourceTest extends ApiTestCase | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 15 - 41 | |
| public function testPostToCreateTreasure(): void | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 44 - 45 | |
| $this->browser() | |
| // ... lines 47 - 51 | |
| ->post('/api/treasures', HttpOptions::json([ | |
| // ... lines 53 - 56 | |
| 'owner' => '/api/users/'.$user->getId(), | |
| ])) | |
| // ... lines 59 - 60 | |
| ; | |
| } | |
| // ... lines 63 - 179 | |
| } |
When this happens, let's automatically set it to the currently-authenticated user.
Make sure the test fails. Copy the method name... and run it:
symfony php bin/phpunit --filter=testPostToCreateTreasure
Nailed it. Got a 422, 201 expected. That 422 is a validation error from the owner property: this value should not be null.
Removing the Owner Validation
If we're going to make it optional, we need to remove that Assert\NotNull:
| // ... lines 1 - 88 | |
| class DragonTreasure | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 91 - 136 | |
| // ... line 138 | |
| private ?User $owner = null; | |
| // ... lines 140 - 251 | |
| } |
And now when we try the test:
symfony php bin/phpunit --filter=testPostToCreateTreasure
Well hello there gorgeous 500 error! Probably it's because the null owner_id is going kaboom when it hits the database. Yup!
Using the State Processors
So: how can we automatically set this field when it's not sent? In the previous API Platform 2 tutorial, I did this with an entity listener, which is a fine solution. But in API Platform 3, just like when we hashed the user password, there's now a really nice system for this: the state processor system.
As a reminder, our POST and PATCH endpoints for DragonTreasure already have a state processor that comes from Doctrine: it's responsible for saving the object to the database. Our goal will feel familiar at this point: to decorate that state process so we can run extra code before saving.
Like before, start by running:
php bin/console make:state-processor
Call it DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor:
| // ... lines 1 - 2 | |
| namespace App\State; | |
| use ApiPlatform\Metadata\Operation; | |
| use ApiPlatform\State\ProcessorInterface; | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| public function process(mixed $data, Operation $operation, array $uriVariables = [], array $context = []): void | |
| { | |
| // Handle the state | |
| } | |
| } |
Over in src/State/, open that up. Ok, let's decorate! Add the construct method with private ProcessorInterface $innerProcessor:
| // ... lines 1 - 5 | |
| use ApiPlatform\State\ProcessorInterface; | |
| // ... lines 7 - 9 | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| public function __construct(private ProcessorInterface $innerProcessor) | |
| { | |
| } | |
| // ... lines 15 - 19 | |
| } |
Tip
In API Platform 3.2 and higher, you should return $this->innerProcessor->process(). This
is also a safe thing to do in 3.0 & 3.1.
Then down in process(), call that! This method doesn't return anything - it has a void return - so we just need $this->innerProcessor - don't forget that part like I am - ->process() passing $data, $operation, $uriVariables and $context:
| // ... lines 1 - 9 | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 12 - 15 | |
| public function process(mixed $data, Operation $operation, array $uriVariables = [], array $context = []): void | |
| { | |
| $this->innerProcessor->process($data, $operation, $uriVariables, $context); | |
| } | |
| } |
Now, to make Symfony use our state processor instead of the normal one from Doctrine, add #[AsDecorator]... and the id of the service is api_platform.doctrine.orm.state.persist_processor:
| // ... lines 1 - 6 | |
| use Symfony\Component\DependencyInjection\Attribute\AsDecorator; | |
| ('api_platform.doctrine.orm.state.persist_processor') | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 12 - 19 | |
| } |
Cool! Now, everything that uses that service in the system will be passed our service instead... and then the original will be passed into us.
Decorating Multiple Times is Ok!
Oh, and there's something cool going on. Look at UserHashPasswordStateProcessor. We're decorating the same thing there! Yea, we're decorating that service twice, which is totally allowed! Internally, this will create a, sort of, chain of decorated services.
Ok, let's get to work setting the owner. Autowire our favorite Security service so we can figure out who is logged in:
| // ... lines 1 - 7 | |
| use Symfony\Bundle\SecurityBundle\Security; | |
| // ... lines 9 - 11 | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| public function __construct(private ProcessorInterface $innerProcessor, private Security $security) | |
| { | |
| } | |
| // ... lines 17 - 25 | |
| } |
Then, before we do the saving, if $data is an instanceof DragonTreasure and $data->getOwner() is null and $this->security->getUser() - making sure the user is logged in - then $data->setOwner($this->security->getUser()):
| // ... lines 1 - 11 | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 14 - 17 | |
| public function process(mixed $data, Operation $operation, array $uriVariables = [], array $context = []): void | |
| { | |
| if ($data instanceof DragonTreasure && $data->getOwner() === null && $this->security->getUser()) { | |
| $data->setOwner($this->security->getUser()); | |
| } | |
| $this->innerProcessor->process($data, $operation, $uriVariables, $context); | |
| } | |
| } |
That should do it! Run that test:
symfony php bin/phpunit --filter=testPostToCreateTreasure
Yikes! Allowed memory size exhausted. I smell recursion! Because... I'm calling process() on myself: I need $this->innerProcessor->process():
| // ... lines 1 - 11 | |
| class DragonTreasureSetOwnerProcessor implements ProcessorInterface | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 14 - 17 | |
| public function process(mixed $data, Operation $operation, array $uriVariables = [], array $context = []): void | |
| { | |
| // ... lines 20 - 23 | |
| $this->innerProcessor->process($data, $operation, $uriVariables, $context); | |
| } | |
| } |
Now:
symfony php bin/phpunit --filter=testPostToCreateTreasure
A passing test is so much cooler than recursion. And the owner field is now optional!
Next: we currently return all treasures from our GET collection endpoint, including unpublished treasures. Let's fix that by modifying the query behind that endpoint to hide them.
15 Comments
process method should return the result, otherwise you get NULL response in the response body
Hey @Nuri!
I think you're right - it was a (I believe) non-intentional change in API Platform 3.2. I've just added a note for this (I had a note in an earlier chapter already). And you weren't the only one tripping over this :) - https://github.com/SymfonyCasts/api-platform3/issues/43 - I appreciate the reports.
Cheers!
hi i'm stuck here
i'm using api 3.3.1 and symfony 7.1
my test:
the owner part on my Park entity:
i'm getting an error i can't understand:
i finally manage to make it works. To make it i had to add an Authorization Header (i'm using JWT). But in the tutorial i don't how the user is authenticated in the test:
you have :
`public function testPostToCreateTreasure(): void
So where is the authentication happening ? how could the test pass if you don't authenticate ? i am missing something ?
Thanks and great tut by the way.
Ok i think i found the "problem".
It is because i am using JWT for the connexion and actingAs apparently is using the PHP sessions as far as i understand.
I tried without actingAS and put only the authorisation header with my token and the test pass.
thanks
Hey @Zaz
Thank you for sharing your solution. As far as I know, the
actingAs()method is a quick way to log in as any user in your tests, but it does not goes through the login process, it's more like a hackCheers!
It appears that the custom processor runs after the security annotations. So when this is set: object.getOwnerUser() on an entity's security annotation - the test just fails :-(
I could put security logic into the processor, but it feels like it belongs in the security annotations as: 'object.getOwnerUser() == user'.
ideally the processor would set ownerUser to: the currently logged in user (when it's not set explicitly via the post) and throw a 403 when the owner is set incorrectly. Or is this not the right approach? I'm just a little confused about how these two concepts work together in a real app.
Hey @Cameron
Sorry for the late reply. Yea, sometimes the execution order can cause you trouble. Have you tried moving your security logic into a voter? Or, in this case, it may make sense to use a constraint validation on the
ownerproperty.Cheers!
I was able to get it it work by gwtting the voter to only act if there was an error, then it passes through to the processor. But it wasnt clear how to design api logic for both of these elements as theres some interplay / considerations
Yea, it seems to me this is a flaw on ApiPlatform, and this is not the only case. In this video Ryan talks about another runtime condition that may cause you trouble. I think your approach is correct unless we're missing something. Have you tried asking in the ApiPlatform slack channel? They may know more about how to handle this edge-case
When will this finally be ready?
Hey @Rsteuber!
I JUST recorded the audio today - it'll probably be a week or two before the video is out, but you refresh, you'll see the final "script" for this chapter (though, code blocks will come later). Also, if you download the code, what we do in this chapter is already in there. I hope that helps!
Cheers!
Hmm, it seems I can't download the source code yet. Guess i have to wait when it is released.
Cheers :)
Hey @Rsteuber
Yea, the download button it's disabled for non-published chapters, but if you only want to download the course code, you can go to any other chapter and download it there
Cheers!
Hey Ryan, Yes thank you so very much! It really helps :)
"Houston: no signs of life"
Start the conversation!