Adds Encryptable model behavior

[der-On]

This pull requests adds the Encryptable model behavior which is based on the Encryptable model trait but can be added dynamically using the models static ::extend method.

Usage:

MyModelClass::extend(function ($model) {
  $model->addDynamicMethod('getEncryptableAttributes', function () {
    return ['private_attribute'];
  });
  $model->implement[] = \Winter\Storm\Database\Behaviors\Encryptable::class;
});

[what-the-diff]

• Added a new file
• The class Encryptable extends the ExtensionBase class from Winter\Storm\Extension namespace
• In the constructor, we call bootEncryptable() method and pass $parent as an argument to it (which is actually our model)
• We check if getEncryptableAttributes() exists in our model or not using methodExists(). If this function doesn't exist then throw exception with message "You must define a getEncrytableAttributes..."
• Then we bind two events: beforeSetAttribute & beforeGetAttribute which are triggered when setting/getting attributes of models respectively

[mjauvin]

@der-On can you look into the failed tests?

[bennothommo]

@der-On one thing I've noticed is that during the bootEncryptable() method, you're doing a check to see if the $encryptable property exists in the model, and throwing an exception if it doesn't exist. The problem is - your comment above stipulates that the $encryptable property should be protected (like it is with the Encryptable trait), but unfortunately this won't work in the context of a behavior, because they cannot access protected or private properties and methods.

Also, your example has the getEncryptableAttributes() method dynamically added, which would make the $encryptable property redundant.

So to make this work, either that property check needs to be dropped, or the $encryptable property needs to be made public. Ideally, it would be better DX if they don't have to create a dynamic method every time they wish to use a behavior, but on the flip-side, I'm not sure allowing the $encryptable property to be public is a good idea.

If my scoped and local extensions PR is merged, we'd have a mechanism to be able to allow us to access protected properties, so this could be a good push to get that merged.

I'll commit a test and my changes which demonstrate the behavior working when $encryptable is public, but ultimately we need to make a decision on how we want to go forward with that scenario first.

[der-On]

@LukeTowers @bennothommo wow thanks for all the input and improvements. This is becoming interesting.

[github-actions]

This pull request will be closed and archived in 3 days, as there has been no activity in the last 60 days.
If this is still being worked on, please respond and we will re-open this pull request.
If this pull request is critical to your business, consider joining the Premium Support Program where a Service Level Agreement is offered.

[github-actions]

This pull request will be closed and archived in 3 days, as there has been no activity in the last 60 days.
If this is still being worked on, please respond and we will re-open this pull request.
If this pull request is critical to your business, consider joining the Premium Support Program where a Service Level Agreement is offered.

[LukeTowers]

@bennothommo what's left on this?

[bennothommo]

Given that the extension changes were merged, just converting these changes in this PR to use that instead.

[LukeTowers]

@bennothommo is that something that you are able to take care of or are you wanting @der-On to do that or is @mjauvin interested in doing that (he's currently assigned to the PR?).

[bennothommo]

If someone else can tackle it sooner, feel free, otherwise I'll circle to it sometime in the near future.

[github-actions]

This pull request will be closed and archived in 3 days, as there has been no activity in the last 60 days.
If this is still being worked on, please respond and we will re-open this pull request.
If this pull request is critical to your business, consider joining the Premium Support Program where a Service Level Agreement is offered.

[der-On]

@mjauvin Made all the changes. Let's see what the tests say.

[der-On]

@mjauvin Seems like there is some unknown error with the code analysis but unit tests have passed.

[mjauvin]

@bennothommo how do we solve this with phpstan, we're accessing a protected property with the help of the extend() method...

[bennothommo]

Surprised that the tests are passing - I think this branch is still missing all the changes to the Extension framework.

[bennothommo]

Should be all good now.

[der-On]

Awesome! Sorry for me taking so long to get back to this.

[mjauvin]

Looks good to me!

[der-On]

Whohoo! Thanks.