minor #36710 [DI][EventDispatcher] added contract for implementation (bestform)
This PR was merged into the 3.4 branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI][EventDispatcher] added contract for implementation
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | 3.4
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tickets | Fix #36708
| License | MIT
As described in the attached issue a comment in the documentation of the `EventSubscriberInterface` would be helpful to make sure users do not use logic based on runtime state in their implementation of `getSubscribedEvents`.
Commits
-------
88e43d4d4c
[DI][EventDispatcher] added contract for implementation
This commit is contained in:
commit
f6ae18e3ac
|
@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ interface EventSubscriberInterface
|
||||||
* * ['eventName' => ['methodName', $priority]]
|
* * ['eventName' => ['methodName', $priority]]
|
||||||
* * ['eventName' => [['methodName1', $priority], ['methodName2']]]
|
* * ['eventName' => [['methodName1', $priority], ['methodName2']]]
|
||||||
*
|
*
|
||||||
|
* The code must not depend on runtime state as it will only be called at compile time.
|
||||||
|
* All logic depending on runtime state must be put into the individual methods handling the events.
|
||||||
|
*
|
||||||
* @return array The event names to listen to
|
* @return array The event names to listen to
|
||||||
*/
|
*/
|
||||||
public static function getSubscribedEvents();
|
public static function getSubscribedEvents();
|
||||||
|
|
Reference in New Issue