Injecting User model into FormRequest

[kimitaka]

Hello,

I have a question about dependency injection in Laravel.

I want to access a User model instance that indicates currently manipulating user data in FormRequest to reduce controller size.
For example, to check an email is unique except for the current user; I wrote like this.

FormRequest implementation

class UpdateEmailRequest extends FormRequest
{
    public function rules(User $user): array
    {
        return [
            'email' => ['required', 'email', Rule::unique('users', 'email')->ignore($user->id)],
        ];
    }
}

And I use this as a type hinting in a controller.

Controller implementation

class UserController extends Controller
    public function update(UpdateEmailRequest $request)
    {
        // codes to update email
    }

I supposed Laravel's DI injects a currently manipulating User model object into UpdateEmailRequest by a relation between the controller and it.
But when I tried them, injected $user instance was a brand new User one.

I escaped this problem by accessing a request via route definition like these.

Route definition

Route::put('/users/{user}', 'update');

In UpdateEmailRequest class

$this->route('user')

However, I think this workaround is not a good idea because this means UpdateEmailRequest depends on a route definition.
Do you have any ideas for getting a User instance and keeping sparse connections among classes?
I beg your help, thank you.

[shaedrich]

When you want to get the currently authenticated user making this request inside the form request class, you can do so via $request->user()

[kimitaka]

Thank you for answering my question. However, I want to retrieve a user resource indicated by a URI like /users/{id}, not the authenticated user. I now understand how to obtain a user instance by manually fetching the request parameters. But by doing this, I cannot take full advantage of DI.
My question was posted a year ago, and I'm unfamiliar with the latest version of Laravel. I'll give it a try later.

[shaedrich]

Ah, then I misread "I think this workaround is not a good idea because this means UpdateEmailRequest depends on a route definition.". Thanks for clarifying that.