Good and bad practices¶
You should avoid creating side effects in your modules for two reasons:
- Side effects will make it more difficult to test a module if you want to do it
- Modules expose a way to acquire some resource but they don’t provide any way to release it. If, for example, your module connects to a remote server while creating a service you have no way of closing that connection unless the service exposes it.
Injecting into constructors vs injecting into other methods¶
Injector 0.11+ doesn’t support injecting into non-constructor methods, this section is kept for historical reasons.
Injector 0.11 deprecates using @inject with keyword arguments to declare bindings, this section remains unchanged for historical reasons.
In general you should prefer injecting into constructors to injecting into other methods because:
it can expose potential issues earlier (at object construction time rather than at the method call)
it exposes class’ dependencies more openly. Constructor injection:
class Service1(object): @inject(http_client=HTTP) def __init__(self, http_client): self.http_client = http_client # some other code # tens or hundreds lines of code def method(self): # do something pass
Regular method injection:
class Service2(object): def __init__(self): # some other code # tens or hundreds lines of code @inject(http_client=HTTP) def method(self, http_client): # do something pass
In first case you know all the dependencies by looking at the class’ constructor, in the second you don’t know about
HTTPdependency until you see the method definition.
Slightly different approach is suggested when it comes to Injector modules - in this case injecting into their constructors (or
configuremethods) would make the injection process dependent on the order of passing modules to Injector and therefore quite fragile. See this code sample:
A = Key('A') B = Key('B') class ModuleA(Module): @inject(a=A) def configure(self, binder, a): pass class ModuleB(Module): @inject(b=B) def __init__(self, b): pass class ModuleC(Module): def configure(self, binder): binder.bind(A, to='a') binder.bind(B, to='b') # error, at the time of ModuleA processing A is unbound Injector([ModuleA, ModuleC]) # error, at the time of ModuleB processing B is unbound Injector([ModuleB, ModuleC]) # no error this time Injector([ModuleC, ModuleA, ModuleB])
Doing too much in modules and/or providers¶
An implementation detail of Injector: Injector and accompanying classes are protected by a lock to make them thread safe. This has a downside though: in general only one thread can use dependency injection at any given moment.
In best case scenario you “only” slow other threads’ dependency injection down. In worst case scenario (performing blocking calls without timeouts) you can deadlock whole application.
It is advised to avoid performing any IO, particularly without a timeout set, inside modules code.
As an illustration:
from threading import Thread from time import sleep from injector import inject, Injector, Key, Module, provider SubA = Key('SubA') A = Key('A') B = Key('B') class BadModule(Module): @provider def provide_a(self, suba: SubA) -> A: return suba @provider def provide_suba(self) -> SubA: print('Providing SubA...') while True: print('Sleeping...') sleep(1) # This never executes return 'suba' @provider def provide_b(self) -> B: return 'b' injector = Injector([BadModule]) thread = Thread(target=lambda: injector.get(A)) # to make sure the thread doesn't keep the application alive thread.daemon = True thread.start() # This will never finish injector.get(B) print('Got B')
Here’s the output of the application:
Providing SubA... Sleeping... Sleeping... Sleeping... (...)
Injecting Injector and abusing Injector.get¶
Sometimes code like this is written:
class A(object): pass class B(object): pass class C(object): @inject def __init__(self, injector: Injector): self.a = injector.get(A) self.b = injector.get(B)
It is advised to use the following pattern instead:
class A(object): pass class B(object): pass class C(object): @inject def __init__(self, a: A, b: B): self.a = a self.b = b
The second form has the benefits of:
- expressing clearly what the dependencies of
- making testing of the
Cclass easier - you can provide the dependencies (whether they are mocks or not) directly, instead of having to mock
Injectorand make the mock handle
- following the common practice and being easier to understand
Injecting dependencies only to pass them somewhere else¶
A pattern similar to the one below can emerge:
class A(object): pass class B(object): def __init__(self, a): self.a = a class C(object): @inject def __init__(self, a: A): self.b = B(a)
C in this example has the responsibility of gathering dependencies of
B and constructing an object of type
B, there may be a valid reason
for it but in general it defeats the purpose of using
Injector and should
The appropriate pattern is:
class A(object): pass class B(object): @inject def __init__(self, a: A): self.a = a class C(object): @inject def __init__(self, b: B): self.b = b