This PR was merged into the 2.1 branch.
Commits
-------
646a714 Fix export-ignore on Windows
Discussion
----------
Fix export-ignore on Windows
Rules:
Tests/ export-ignore
don't work on Windows. My proposition is:
/Tests export-ignore
* 2.0:
[Form] Fixed NumberToLocalizedStringTransformer to accept both comma and dot as decimal separator, if possible
Show correct class name InputArgument in error message
shows correct class name InputOption in error message
The exception message should say which field is not mapped
[HttpFoundation] Fix name sanitization after perfoming move
Add check to Store::unlock to ensure file exists
Conflicts:
src/Symfony/Bridge/Doctrine/Validator/Constraints/UniqueEntityValidator.php
src/Symfony/Component/HttpFoundation/File/UploadedFile.php
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/Console/Input/InputArgumentTest.php
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/Console/Input/InputOptionTest.php
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/Form/Extension/Core/DataTransformer/NumberToLocalizedStringTransformerTest.php
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/HttpFoundation/File/FileTest.php
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/HttpKernel/HttpCache/StoreTest.php
This PR was merged into the 2.1 branch.
Commits
-------
5d2525b [Form] Created test for DoctrineOrmTypeGuesser see #5790b844d6b [Form] Fixed DoctrineOrmTypeGuesser to guess the "required" option for to-one associations
Discussion
----------
[Form] Doctrine orm type guesser tests
This PR adds tests to https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/5790
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-10-20T10:53:56Z
Using real test entities would be better IMO. Using mocks ties it pretty much to the implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by sstok at 2012-10-21T10:38:53Z
@Tobion thats true, but Doctrine Class meta data takes quite some coding to set-up.
For instance you need the EntityManager to get even get the meta data set!
So you'd end having more code to set-up then your actually testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Burgov at 2012-10-21T12:58:58Z
I wasn't sure whether do use a test entity manager, or do it the way I finally did it.
@sstok true, it's quite some work to set it up, but on the other hand there's the base OrmTestCase class which does it for you, so it'd actually mean I'd only have to create one entity for all the cases: https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Bridge/Doctrine/Tests/DoctrineOrmTestCase.php
@Tobion on the other hand I tend to use a test EM only when I actually need to test persisting and loading, while this test case here is so isolated that I didn't really feel it would be necessary.
I'd like to know which method is preferred though, I'll change it if necessary, and other tests can be added to test the rest of this specific class
Commits
-------
83dc966 [Form] Fixed some PHPDoc
596bbb1 [Form] fixed FormConfigBuilder to use PropertyPathInterface
a523823 [Form] fixed and added phpDoc
Discussion
----------
[Form] fixed and added phpDoc
[ci skip]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by sstok at 2012-08-26T08:11:01Z
Some descriptions don''t seem to be properly aligned, use the CS-fixer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-08-26T17:02:25Z
@sstok This is more about manual fixes concerning forgotten exceptions or wrong data type. The cs fixer gives many false positives and can be applied later.
Commits
-------
f1c4b8b [Doctrine Bridge] Added a parameter ignoreNull on Unique entity to allow a nullable value on field. Added Test
Discussion
----------
[Doctrine Bridge] Added parameter ignoreNull to accept a nullable value on field
In my last project, i use this syntax to test unicity on 2 fields, but it fail because the validator stop if value is null. I dropped the test on validator and my unicity work fine.
```
@UniqueEntity(fields={"username", "deletedAt"})
```
It's possible to add this PR on Bridge.
Thanks
Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T08:14:19Z
This is wrong. RDBMS allow several null values in a unique column and this change will break it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by henrikbjorn at 2012-07-23T08:17:08Z
@stof seems weird indeed it would return if any of the values are null. Makes sense to do a query where the field `IS NULL` or whatever the find method does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T08:18:50Z
@henrikbjorn if you do a query with IS NULL, the validator would force to have only 1 entity with a null field whereas it is not the behavior of the DB-level constraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by henrikbjorn at 2012-07-23T08:20:41Z
In this case i suspect that he wants to achieve a `WHERE username = "henrikbjorn" AND deletedAt IS NULL` which would be valid right? Currently it just returns if any of the fields are null and the validation is never done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-23T08:27:24Z
I suggest to make this configurable as the handling of NULL values in UNIQUE columns [differs between SQL implementations](http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?22,53591,53591#msg-53591).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T08:52:53Z
@stof What the correct solution to test my unicity with deletedAt == null ?
I use this definition: @ORM\Column(name="deleted_at", type="datetime", nullable=true)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:28:44Z
In my local repository, i added a new parameter "$authorizedNullField" on UniqueEntity.php and tested this on UniqueEntityValidator.php:
Code: https://gist.github.com/4122efbe569e3c2c95c0
What about that ?
Thanks for your help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:45:30Z
yep, this would be good (except for the naming which seems weird)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:46:44Z
No problem to change this. I don't find a good name for this ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:47:57Z
what about ``allowMultipleNull`` (defaulting to ``true`` for BC) ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:51:30Z
Why multiple ? This option is for one or many. what about `allowNullable` ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:52:44Z
@Garfield-fr the current behavior allows having multiple null values without failing to the unique constraint
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:56:07Z
ok. I make `allowMultipleNull`.
It's ok with that: https://gist.github.com/cae8d43780c45a5011ed
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-23T20:58:12Z
What about `uniqueNull` (`false` by default)? `ignoreNull` (`true` by default)? I find `allowMultipleNull` a bit cumbersome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:58:26Z
no it is not. You have an issue in the validator. You have an extra negation.
Please update your PR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T21:01:59Z
@stof `ignoreNull` is ok for you ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T21:10:24Z
yes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-08-05T07:48:03Z
Is it mergeable now? Is yes, @Garfield-fr Can you squash your commits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-08-05T08:43:23Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/2039523) (merged 19ae3cf9 into c20c1d18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-05T12:09:02Z
@Garfield-fr when squashing the commits, you need to force the push as you are rewriting the history. You should not have merged with your remote branch
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-08-05T12:10:15Z
What's the right solution for resolve this ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-05T12:11:09Z
@Garfield-fr reset your local branch to the squashed commit and force the push
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-08-05T12:14:09Z
@stof Thanks for your help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-08-05T12:19:06Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/2040210) (merged f1c4b8b4 into 20d2e5a1).
Commits
-------
fb002d8 [Form] Fixed variable passing from outer to inner blocks of the same FormView instance
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed variable passing from outer to inner blocks of the same FormView instance
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #5029
Todo: -
This PR fixes two bugs.
The first bug is described in #5029. The second parameter to the "form_label" function in Twig, if given, always overwrote whatever label was defined previously.
```
{# null would overwrite whatever is currently set #}
form_label(form, null, { ... })
```
The second bug affected passing variables from outer to inner blocks. In the following example, "label_attr" would not be forwarded to the "form_label" function.
```
form_row(form, { "label_attr": { "class": "my_class" }})
```
Both bugs are fixed now.
Commits
-------
24b764e [Form] Fixed issues mentioned in the PR
9216816 [Form] Turned Twig filters into tests
310f985 [Form] Added a layer of 2.0 BC methods to FormView and updated UPGRADE and CHANGELOG
5984b18 [Form] Precalculated the closure for deciding whether a choice is selected (PHP +30ms, Twig +30ms)
5dc3c39 [Form] Moved the access to templating helpers out of the choice loop for performance reasons (PHP +100ms)
0ef9acb [Form] Moved the method isChoiceSelected() to the ChoiceView class (PHP +150ms)
8b72766 [Form] Tweaked the generation of option tags for performance (PHP +200ms, Twig +50ms)
400c95b [Form] Replace methods in ChoiceView by public properties (PHP +100ms, Twig +400ms)
d072f35 [Form] The properties of FormView are now accessed directly in order to increase performance (PHP +200ms, Twig +150ms)
Discussion
----------
[Form] Made FormView and ChoiceView properties public for performance reasons
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: **yes**
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
This PR changes the access to properties of `FormView` and `ChoiceView` objects from getters to direct property accesses. On [my example form](http://advancedform.gpserver.dk/app_dev.php/taxclasses/1) this improves rendering performance for **300ms** with PHP templates and **550ms** with Twig on my local machine.
Unfortunately, this breaks BC both with 2.0 and with the current master in Form Types and PHP templates. Twig templates are not affected by this change.
2.0:
```
$formView->set('my_var', 'foobar');
$formView->get('my_var');
$formView->getChild('childName');
$formView['childName'];
```
master:
```
$formView->setVar('my_var', 'foobar');
$formView->getVar('my_var');
$formView->get('childName');
$formView['childName'];
```
this PR:
```
$formView->vars['my_var'] = 'foobar';
$formView->vars['my_var'];
$formView->children['childName'];
$formView['childName'];
```
Should we add methods to keep BC with 2.0?
The second part of this PR contains improvements to the rendering of choice fields. These gain another **~500ms** for PHP templates and **80ms** for Twig. These improvements are BC, unless you overwrote the block "choice_widget_options" in your form themes which then needs to be adapted.
**Update:**
The PR now includes a BC layer for 2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-21T11:37:41Z
@bschussek couldn't we keep the getters and setters for BC even if the rendering accesses the public properties directly ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-21T11:52:33Z
@stof A BC layer for 2.0 is now included. People who upgraded to master already unfortunately need to adapt their code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by sstok at 2012-07-21T12:40:57Z
👍
