golang-dependency-injection

작성자: samber

Golang에서 의존성 주입(DI)에 대한 종합 가이드입니다. DI가 중요한 이유(테스트 용이성, 느슨한 결합, 관심사 분리, 생명주기 관리), 수동 생성자 주입, DI 라이브러리 비교(google/wire, uber-go/dig, uber-go/fx, samber/do)를 다룹니다. 서비스 아키텍처 설계, 의존성 주입 설정, 강하게 결합된 코드 리팩토링, 싱글톤 또는 서비스 팩토리 관리 시, 또는 사용자가 제어 역전, 서비스...에 대해 질문할 때 이 스킬을 사용하세요.

npx skills add https://github.com/samber/cc-skills-golang --skill golang-dependency-injection

Persona: You are a Go software architect. You guide teams toward testable, loosely coupled designs — you choose the simplest DI approach that solves the problem, and you never over-engineer.

Modes:

  • Design mode (new project, new service, or adding a service to an existing DI setup): assess the existing dependency graph and lifecycle needs; recommend manual injection or a library from the decision table; then generate the wiring code.
  • Refactor mode (existing coupled code): use up to 3 parallel sub-agents — Agent 1 identifies global variables and init() service setup, Agent 2 maps concrete type dependencies that should become interfaces, Agent 3 locates service-locator anti-patterns (container passed as argument) — then consolidate findings and propose a migration plan.

Community default. A company skill that explicitly supersedes samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-dependency-injection skill takes precedence.

Dependency Injection in Go

Dependency injection (DI) means passing dependencies to a component rather than having it create or find them. In Go, this is how you build testable, loosely coupled applications — your services declare what they need, and the caller (or container) provides it.

This skill is not exhaustive. When using a DI library (google/wire, uber-go/dig, uber-go/fx, samber/do), refer to the library's official documentation and code examples for current API signatures.

For interface-based design foundations (accept interfaces, return structs), see the samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-structs-interfaces skill.

Best Practices Summary

  1. Dependencies MUST be injected via constructors — NEVER use global variables or init() for service setup
  2. Small projects (< 10 services) SHOULD use manual constructor injection — no library needed
  3. Interfaces MUST be defined where consumed, not where implemented — accept interfaces, return structs
  4. NEVER use global registries or package-level service locators
  5. The DI container MUST only exist at the composition root (main() or app startup) — NEVER pass the container as a dependency
  6. Prefer lazy initialization — only create services when first requested
  7. Use singletons for stateful services (DB connections, caches) and transients for stateless ones
  8. Mock at the interface boundary — DI makes this trivial
  9. Keep the dependency graph shallow — deep chains signal design problems
  10. Choose the right DI library for your project size and team — see the decision table below

Why Dependency Injection?

Problem without DIHow DI solves it
Functions create their own dependenciesDependencies are injected — swap implementations freely
Testing requires real databases, APIsPass mock implementations in tests
Changing one component breaks othersLoose coupling via interfaces — components don't know each other's internals
Services initialized everywhereCentralized container manages lifecycle (singleton, factory, lazy)
All services loaded at startupLazy loading — services created only when first requested
Global state and init() functionsExplicit wiring at startup — predictable, debuggable

DI shines in applications with many interconnected services — HTTP servers, microservices, CLI tools with plugins. For a small script with 2-3 functions, manual wiring is fine. Don't over-engineer.

Manual Constructor Injection (No Library)

For small projects, pass dependencies through constructors. See Manual DI examples for a complete application example.

// ✓ Good — explicit dependencies, testable
type UserService struct {
    db     UserStore
    mailer Mailer
    logger *slog.Logger
}

func NewUserService(db UserStore, mailer Mailer, logger *slog.Logger) *UserService {
    return &UserService{db: db, mailer: mailer, logger: logger}
}

// main.go — manual wiring
func main() {
    logger := slog.Default()
    db := postgres.NewUserStore(connStr)
    mailer := smtp.NewMailer(smtpAddr)
    userSvc := NewUserService(db, mailer, logger)
    orderSvc := NewOrderService(db, logger)
    api := NewAPI(userSvc, orderSvc, logger)
    api.ListenAndServe(":8080")
}
// ✗ Bad — hardcoded dependencies, untestable
type UserService struct {
    db *sql.DB
}

func NewUserService() *UserService {
    db, _ := sql.Open("postgres", os.Getenv("DATABASE_URL")) // hidden dependency
    return &UserService{db: db}
}

Manual DI breaks down when:

  • You have 15+ services with cross-dependencies
  • You need lifecycle management (health checks, graceful shutdown)
  • You want lazy initialization or scoped containers
  • Wiring order becomes fragile and hard to maintain

DI Library Comparison

Go has three main approaches to DI libraries:

Decision Table

CriteriaManualgoogle/wireuber-go/dig + fxsamber/do
Project sizeSmall (< 10 services)Medium-LargeLargeAny size
Type safetyCompile-timeCompile-time (codegen)Runtime (reflection)Compile-time (generics)
Code generationNoneRequired (wire_gen.go)NoneNone
ReflectionNoneNoneYesNone
API styleN/AProvider sets + build tagsStruct tags + decoratorsSimple, generic functions
Lazy loadingManualN/A (all eager)Built-in (fx)Built-in
SingletonsManualBuilt-inBuilt-inBuilt-in
Transient/factoryManualManualBuilt-inBuilt-in
Scopes/modulesManualProvider setsModule system (fx)Built-in (hierarchical)
Health checksManualManualManualBuilt-in interface
Graceful shutdownManualManualBuilt-in (fx)Built-in interface
Container cloningN/AN/AN/ABuilt-in
DebuggingPrint statementsCompile errorsfx.Visualize()ExplainInjector(), web interface
Go versionAnyAnyAny1.18+ (generics)
Learning curveNoneMediumHighLow

Quick Comparison: Same App, Four Ways

The dependency graph: Config -> Database -> UserStore -> UserService -> API

Manual:

cfg := NewConfig()
db := NewDatabase(cfg)
store := NewUserStore(db)
svc := NewUserService(store)
api := NewAPI(svc)
api.Run()
// No automatic shutdown, health checks, or lazy loading

google/wire:

// wire.go — then run: wire ./...
func InitializeAPI() (*API, error) {
    wire.Build(NewConfig, NewDatabase, NewUserStore, NewUserService, NewAPI)
    return nil, nil
}
// No lifecycle hooks (OnStart/OnStop) or health checks; cleanup via returned func() from providers

uber-go/fx:

app := fx.New(
    fx.Provide(NewConfig, NewDatabase, NewUserStore, NewUserService),
    fx.Invoke(func(api *API) { api.Run() }),
)
app.Run() // manages lifecycle, but reflection-based

samber/do:

i := do.New()
do.Provide(i, NewConfig)
do.Provide(i, NewDatabase)    // auto shutdown + health check
do.Provide(i, NewUserStore)
do.Provide(i, NewUserService)
api := do.MustInvoke[*API](i)
api.Run()
// defer i.Shutdown() — handles all cleanup automatically

Testing with DI

DI makes testing straightforward — inject mocks instead of real implementations:

// Define a mock
type MockUserStore struct {
    users map[string]*User
}

func (m *MockUserStore) FindByID(ctx context.Context, id string) (*User, error) {
    u, ok := m.users[id]
    if !ok {
        return nil, ErrNotFound
    }
    return u, nil
}

// Test with manual injection
func TestUserService_GetUser(t *testing.T) {
    mock := &MockUserStore{
        users: map[string]*User{"1": {ID: "1", Name: "Alice"}},
    }
    svc := NewUserService(mock, nil, slog.Default())

    user, err := svc.GetUser(context.Background(), "1")
    if err != nil {
        t.Fatalf("unexpected error: %v", err)
    }
    if user.Name != "Alice" {
        t.Errorf("got %q, want %q", user.Name, "Alice")
    }
}

Testing with samber/do — Clone and Override

Container cloning creates an isolated copy where you override only the services you need to mock:

func TestUserService_WithDo(t *testing.T) {
    // Create a test injector with mock implementation
    testInjector := do.New()

    // Provide the mock UserStore interface
    do.OverrideValue[UserStore](testInjector, &MockUserStore{
        users: map[string]*User{"1": {ID: "1", Name: "Alice"}},
    })

    // Provide other real services as needed
    do.Provide[*slog.Logger](testInjector, func(i *do.Injector) (*slog.Logger, error) {
        return slog.Default(), nil
    })

    svc := do.MustInvoke[*UserService](testInjector)
    user, err := svc.GetUser(context.Background(), "1")
    // ... assertions
}

This is particularly useful for integration tests where you want most services to be real but need to mock a specific boundary (database, external API, mailer).

When to Adopt a DI Library

SignalAction
< 10 services, simple dependenciesStay with manual constructor injection
10-20 services, some cross-cutting concernsConsider a DI library
20+ services, lifecycle management neededStrongly recommended
Need health checks, graceful shutdownUse a library with built-in lifecycle support
Team unfamiliar with DI conceptsStart manual, migrate incrementally

Common Mistakes

MistakeFix
Global variables as dependenciesPass through constructors or DI container
init() for service setupExplicit initialization in main() or container
Depending on concrete typesAccept interfaces at consumption boundaries
Passing the container everywhere (service locator)Inject specific dependencies, not the container
Deep dependency chains (A->B->C->D->E)Flatten — most services should depend on repositories and config directly
Creating a new container per requestOne container per application; use scopes for request-level isolation

Cross-References

  • → See samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-samber-do skill for detailed samber/do usage patterns
  • → See samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-structs-interfaces skill for interface design and composition
  • → See samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-testing skill for testing with dependency injection
  • → See samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-project-layout skill for DI initialization placement

References

samber의 다른 스킬

golang-code-style
samber
Golang code style conventions — line length and breaking, variable declarations, control flow clarity, when comments help vs hurt. Use when writing or reviewing Go code, asking about style or clarity, or establishing project coding standards. Not for naming conventions (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-naming` skill), linter configuration (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-lint` skill), or doc comments (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-documentation` skill).
developmentcode-review
golang-testing
samber
Production-ready Golang tests — table-driven tests, testify suites and mocks, parallel tests, fuzzing, fixtures, goroutine leak detection with goleak, snapshot testing, code coverage, integration tests, idiomatic test naming. Use when writing or reviewing Go tests, choosing a testing approach, setting up Go test CI, or debugging flaky/slow tests. For testify-specific APIs see `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-stretchr-testify`; for measurement methodology see...
developmenttestingcode-review
golang-design-patterns
samber
관용적인 Golang 디자인 패턴 — 함수형 옵션, 생성자, 오류 흐름 및 연쇄, 리소스 관리 및 생명주기, 정상 종료, 복원력, 아키텍처, 의존성 주입, 데이터 처리, 스트리밍 등. 아키텍처 패턴을 명시적으로 선택할 때, 함수형 옵션을 구현할 때, 생성자 API를 설계할 때, 정상 종료를 설정할 때, 복원력 패턴을 적용할 때, 또는 특정 문제에 맞는 관용적인 Go 패턴을 질문할 때 적용하세요.
developmentdesigncode-review
golang-error-handling
samber
Idiomatic Golang error handling — creation, wrapping with %w, errors.Is/As, errors.Join, custom error types, sentinel errors, panic/recover, the single handling rule, structured logging with slog, HTTP request logging middleware, and samber/oops for production errors. Built to make logs usable at scale with log aggregation 3rd-party tools. Apply when creating, wrapping, inspecting, or logging errors in Go code. For samber/oops specifics → See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-samber-oops`...
developmentcode-review
golang-performance
samber
Golang 성능 최적화 패턴 및 방법론 - X 병목이 발생하면 Y를 적용. 할당 감소, CPU 효율성, 메모리 레이아웃, GC 튜닝, 풀링, 캐싱, 핫패스 최적화를 다룹니다. 프로파일링이나 벤치마크에서 병목이 확인되어 이를 해결할 적절한 최적화 패턴이 필요할 때 사용합니다. 또한 성능 코드 리뷰 시 개선 사항이나 빠른 성능 향상을 식별하는 데 도움이 될 벤치마크를 제안할 때 사용합니다. 측정 방법론에는 해당하지 않습니다(→...
developmentcode-review
golang-security
samber
Golang의 보안 모범 사례와 취약점 방지. 인젝션(SQL, 명령어, XSS), 암호화, 파일 시스템 안전, 네트워크 보안, 쿠키, 비밀 관리, 메모리 안전, 로깅을 다룹니다. 보안을 위해 Go 코드를 작성, 검토 또는 감사할 때, 또는 암호화, I/O, 비밀 관리, 사용자 입력 처리, 인증과 관련된 위험한 코드 작업 시 적용하세요. 보안 도구 구성도 포함됩니다.
securitycode-reviewdevelopment
golang-database
samber
Go 데이터베이스 접근에 대한 종합 가이드 — 매개변수화된 쿼리, 구조체 스캐닝, NULL 가능 컬럼, 트랜잭션, 격리 수준, SELECT FOR UPDATE, 연결 풀, 배치 처리, 컨텍스트 전파, 마이그레이션 도구. PostgreSQL, MariaDB, MySQL, SQLite와 상호작용하는 Golang 코드를 작성, 검토, 디버깅할 때 사용하거나, 데이터베이스 테스트 시, 또는 database/sql, sqlx, pgx에 대한 질문이 있을 때 사용합니다. 데이터베이스 스키마나 마이그레이션 SQL은 생성하지 않습니다.
developmentdatabase
golang-lint
samber
Golang 프로젝트를 위한 린팅 모범 사례와 golangci-lint 설정 — 린터 실행, .golangci.yml 구성, nolint 지시어로 경고 억제, 린트 출력 해석, 린터 선택. golangci-lint를 구성할 때, 린트 경고나 nolint 억제에 대해 질문할 때, 코드 품질 도구를 설정할 때, 또는 린터를 선택할 때 사용합니다. 또한 사용자가 golangci-lint, go vet, staticcheck, revive를 언급할 때 사용합니다.
developmentcode-reviewtesting