WIP: behaviors refactoring

[lucianobaraglia]

See #2269 and https://gist.github.com/lucianobaraglia/8d184cd9b9c7505a0b24

Usage example:

public function behaviors()
{
    return [
        // arbitrary attributes and values
        'attributestamp' => [
            'class' => 'yii\behaviors\AttributeStampBehavior',
            'attributes' => [
                \yii\db\ActiveRecord::EVENT_BEFORE_INSERT => [
                    'expires_at' => function() {
                        return date('Y-m-d H:i:s', strtotime("+30 days"));
                    },
                    'created_by_name' => isset(\Yii::$app->user->identity) ? \Yii::$app->user->identity->username : 'n/a',
                ],
            ],
        ],
        // default implementation, sets `created_at` and `updated_at` with `date('Y-md H:i:s')`
        // also, `format` could be configured here
        'timestamp' => [
            'class' => 'yii\behaviors\TimestampBehavior',
            'format' => 'Y-m-d',
        ],
        // this will fill `created_by` and `author_id` with the behaviors default value on insert
        // and `updated_by` on update
        'blameable' => [
            'class' => 'yii\behaviors\BlameableBehavior',
            'attributes' => [
                \yii\db\ActiveRecord::EVENT_BEFORE_INSERT => [
                    'created_by',
                    'author_id',
                ],
                \yii\db\ActiveRecord::EVENT_BEFORE_UPDATE => [
                    'updated_by',
                ],
            ],              
        ],
    ];
}

[qiangxue]

Why is this check needed? Probably use the following code:

if (!empty($this->attributes[$event->name])) {
    foreach ($this->attributes[$event->name] as $key => $val) { ...

[lucianobaraglia]

Right...I just have the habit of give that kind of properties a shorter name...
Will wait for more comments from you to refactor...

[qiangxue]

The check above also ensures attributes has the key $event->name, even though we are almost certain.

[qiangxue]

Ok, I'm done with the code review. Thanks!

[samdark]

AttributeStampBehavior is mainly → It is mainly

[lucianobaraglia]

Well...after review I don't think if this could be helpful.
You are free to take some of it or not and make the changes you think...
If this is merged, please remember that original TimestampBehavior was a work of @creocoder...

Let me know if I can help in anything... 😃

[qiangxue]

after review I don't think if this could be helpful.

Do you mean the three layer thing?

[lucianobaraglia]

after review I don't think if this could be helpful.

Do you mean the three layer thing?

I mean the entire refactor...
Is this bringing some benefits?

[qiangxue]

Sorry if my code review made you feel frustrated. I think the refactoring still makes sense. I will come back to this later when I get time.

[lucianobaraglia]

@qiangxue never ever, I am not that kind of developer!!! 😃
I appreciate your time!
For me, having my code or ideas taken in a professional framework is still a weird idea! So no problem, I am learning a LOT just having you guys reviewing my code...
But please, at least don't post it in http://thedailywtf.com/Series/CodeSOD.aspx 😐

[samdark]

@lucianobaraglia your code isn't bad. We just suggest how to make it better.

[qiangxue]

Agree with @samdark.

BTW, personally I don't quite like the three layers thing because it's a bit over designed and may confuse users without very good explanation and understanding.

[lucianobaraglia]

@samdark I know...thanks!
@qiangxue is the only way I came with that allows the AttributeStampBehavior give that freedom.
The child classes are only pre-configured types of AttributeStampBehavior, that have it's own default value (and don't allow setting anything else).
I guess -one of the- problem is in stampAttribute in child classes, where I unnecesary check for values that won't be used.

[Ragazzo]

ok, so if we have this behavior, should not we have then behavior for is_deleted attribute for example? would like to.

[lucianobaraglia]

@Ragazzo with this approach several automatic attributes stamp could be implemented easily extending AttributeStampBehavior...
I think in VersionableBehavior, for example... and other more specifics...like SoftDeleteBehavior, etc...

[Ragazzo]

yes, but if so, then maybe they should go to yii2-behaviors extension.

[lucianobaraglia]

@Ragazzo would be nice!
It would be great if you can read all the discussion and help with the @qiangxue and @samdark ideas about this all (and I will learn from all of you 😃 )!

[Ragazzo]

i am fine with their suggestions, however some general behaviors are good, and soft-delete is one of them. the question is that should that be yii2-behaviors extension or not.

[qiangxue]

I don't think we need to put them in an extension. We usually create an extension if it has some external dependencies. Otherwise, separating them in an extension only brings trouble to users. The benefit of reducing code size is negligible.

[Ragazzo]

ok, so what is for soft-delete behavior? it is needed same time as other for updating time and blameable behavior.

[qiangxue]

Yes, it's good to have.

[Ragazzo]

ok, @lucianobaraglia can you add behavior for soft-delete? thanks)

[lucianobaraglia]

@Ragazzo this PR was just a refactoring proposal that's still far to be implemented beacuse code has to be improved, I think...
BTW, just for reference, the list of behaviors that comes to my mind:

• AttributeStampBehavior
• TimestampBehavior
• BlameableBehavior
• VersionableBehaior
• SoftDeleteBehavior

Some other...?

[Ragazzo]

first two are not the same? and for what is version...?

[qiangxue]

What about TranslatableBehavior?

[lucianobaraglia]

AttributeStampBehavior is for custom attributes and data stamp...see example here in the first comment...
And Versionable is just taken from Doctrine Behaviors, and works adding a version number each time a record is changed...

[lucianobaraglia]

@qiangxue it would be amazing, but I think maybe it's out of the scope of this refactoring idea...

[Ragazzo]

Translatable? yes, better finish this PR as @lucianobaraglia said. @lucianobaraglia can you open then separated issue with desired behaviors list?