Prevent Node from providing its own dependency?

[ZumiKua]

As the title says, should a node be able to provide its own dependency? Or at least, should we provide a attribute parameter to control this behavior?

Currently I'm using Ninject with AutoInject, Ninject's kernel will be used to inject Godot Nodes. And some Node will create a ChildKernel from its parent's Kernel for its descendants to inject itself.

But with the following code, my Dependent's OnResolved will never be called, because its IKernel is provided by itself, not its parent, and Dependent's Provide() will only be called in OnResolved, which is a deadlock.

[SuperNode(typeof(Dependent), typeof(Provider))]
public partial class SceneA : Sprite2D, IProvide<IKernel>
{

	[Dependency]
	public IKernel Kernel => DependOn(() => RootProvider.FindRoot(this));

	private IKernel _childKernel;


	[Inject]
	public void Initialize()
	{
		GD.Print("Initialize");
	}
	
	public override partial void _Notification(int what);

	public void OnResolved()
	{
		GD.Print("Resolved");
		_childKernel = Kernel.Get<SceneAKernel>();
		_childKernel.Inject(this);
		Provide();
	}

	IKernel IProvide<IKernel>.Value()
	{
		return _childKernel;
	}
}

[jolexxa]

I hadn't anticipated using AutoInject with other DI systems -- it's designed to simply be something that allows a value to be provided to descendant nodes -- nothing else.

I'm not familiar with ninject, so I don't entirely understand what you're asking. Is there a flaw with AutoInject?

[ZumiKua]

It has nothing to do with Ninject, in my code, SceneA acts as both a dependent and a provider, and it provides the type it depends on, which prevents SceneA from resolving its dependency from its parents. (SceneA considers itself to be the provider of IKernel, not its parents).

The problem is: can a node provide a value to itself? I can't say it's a flaw or a design choice, but IMO it doesn't seem to make much sense to allow a node to provide dependencies to itself?

[ZumiKua]

In case I haven't made myself clear, what I am saying can be interpreted as:
Should we change this line to var node = ((Node)dependent).GetParent();?
https://github.com/chickensoft-games/AutoInject/blob/main/Chickensoft.AutoInject.Tests/src/Dependent.cs#L414

[jolexxa]

@ZumiKua okay, thanks for the explanation. I think I see what you're saying. We probably should make that change. I don't think I can think of a valid or intended use case where a node would need to provide its own dependency value.

[jolexxa]

Fixed in #11