🚀 Proposal: Add withExtra() to JsonResource for Clean Inline Augmentation #55644
-
✨ SummaryI propose adding a 💡 MotivationWhile Laravel already supports attaching data via the
There are many cases where developers want to add more fields to the top level of a resource’s JSON structure. This could include:
📦 Example Use CaseLet’s say we're returning a ✅ Controllerpublic function show(Request $request, User $user): JsonResponse
{
return UserResource::make($user)
->withExtra([
'permissions' => $user->getPermissions(),
'token' => $request->user()?->createToken('access')->plainTextToken,
])
->toResponse($request);
}✅ Resourceclass UserResource extends JsonResource
{
public function toArray($request): array
{
return [
'id' => $this->id,
'name' => $this->name,
'email' => $this->email,
];
}
}📤 Expected JSON Output{
"id": 1,
"name": "Jane Doe",
"email": "jane@example.com",
"permissions": ["read", "write"],
"token": "abc123..."
}🤔 Why Not Use
|
| Feature | with() |
withExtra() (Proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| Shown on nested resources? | ❌ No | ✅ Yes |
| Appears at top-level JSON? | ❌ Inside meta only |
✅ Merged with main payload |
| Ideal for payload fields? | ❌ Not really | ✅ Yes |
| Target use case | Metadata | Resource enrichment |
🛠 Implementation Summary
To implement this behavior, the following minimal additions are proposed to JsonResource:
1. Add an $extra property
protected array $extra = [];2. Add the withExtra() method
public function withExtra(array $extra): static
{
$this->extra = array_merge($this->extra, $extra);
return $this;
}3. Update the resolve() method
public function resolve($request = null)
{
$data = $this->toArray(
$request = $request ?: Container::getInstance()->make('request')
);
if ($data instanceof Arrayable) {
$data = $data->toArray();
} elseif ($data instanceof JsonSerializable) {
$data = $data->jsonSerialize();
}
return $this->filter(array_merge((array) $data, $this->extra));
}✅ Benefits
- ✅ Cleaner developer experience
- ✅ Less boilerplate
- ✅ Works consistently even when nested
- ✅ No breaking changes — fully opt-in
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments 3 replies
-
|
Can't this be achieved already with appends on the model and/or with relations on the model? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In my opinion, this clearly falls outside the model’s responsibility — the model should represent business data and encapsulate domain logic, not handle how that data is formatted, structured, or extended in an HTTP response. The model is part of the core application layer, and its main role is to reflect the state and behavior of entities in the business domain. Embedding response-specific logic into the model, such as formatting output, injecting request-based context, or including presentation-driven fields, introduces unnecessary coupling between the domain and transport layers. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Might be but the relations are already there when you send it to the JsonResource. Anyway you should open a PR. The core team looks mostly there and in issues not in discussions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
See how fast you got an answer/feedback there? Anyway, if you are interested in a lib solution see this for meta appends and for resource appends what we wrote earlier applies. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
#55695