This PR was merged into the master branch.
Discussion
----------
[Form] Deprecated bind() and isBound() in favor of submit() and isSubmitted()
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Bug fix? | no
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | yes (*)
| Deprecations? | yes
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | #5493
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | TODO
This change was discussed for a while in #5493. **(*)** It breaks BC *only for people who implemented* `FormInterface` *manually* (not a lot, so I hope). These can fix the problem by simply renaming `bind()` and `isBound()` in their implementation to `submit()` and `isSubmitted()`.
The main rationale is that with the request handlers introduced in #6522, people won't be confronted with the term "binding" anymore. As such, `isBound()` will be a very strange name to new users that have never used `bind()` manually.
See this code sample as example:
```php
$form = $this->createForm(...);
$form->handleRequest($request);
// Imagine you have never heard about bind() or binding. What does this mean?
if ($form->isBound()) {
// ...
}
```
In reality, `bind()` submits a form. Where-ever I renamed "bind" to "submit" in the comments, "submit" made actually much more sense. So it does in the code sample above:
```php
$form = $this->createForm(...);
$form->handleRequest($request);
// Aha!
if ($form->isSubmitted()) {
// ...
}
```
Also when using `submit()` directly, the code makes much more sense now:
```php
$text = $this->createForm('text');
$text->submit('New Value');
```
For current users, the current naming will be supported until 3.0.
Commits
-------
41b0127 [Form] Deprecated bind() and isBound() in favor of submit() and isSubmitted()
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
6b1652e [PropertyAccess] Property path, small refactoring, read/writeProperty to read/write Property/Index.
1bae7b2 [PropertyAccess] Extracted PropertyAccess component out of Form
Discussion
----------
[PropertyAccess] Extracted PropertyAccess component out of Form
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
License of the code: MIT
Documentation PR: -
TODO: adapt DoctrineBundle/PropelBundle to pass the "property_accessor" service to EntityType/ModelType
Usage:
```php
$accessor = PropertyAccess::getPropertyAccessor();
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->setBar('value')
$accessor->setValue($object, 'foo.bar', 'value');
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->getBar()
$accessor->getValue($object, 'foo.bar');
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()['bar']
$accessor->getValue($object, 'foo[bar]');
// equivalent to $array['foo']->setBar('value')
$accessor->setValue($array, '[foo].bar', 'value');
// equivalent to $array['foo']['bar']
$accessor->getValue($array, '[foo][bar]');
```
Later on, once we have generation and caching of class-specific accessors, configuration will be something like this (consistent with the Form and Validator component):
```php
$accessor = PropertyAccess::getPropertyAccessorBuilder()
->setCacheDirectory(__DIR__ . '/cache')
->setCacheLifeTime(86400)
->enableMagicGetSet()
->enableMagicCall()
->getPropertyAccessor();
```
or
```php
$accessor = PropertyAccess::getPropertyAccessorBuilder()
->setCache($cache)
->getPropertyAccessor();
```
etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Burgov at 2013-01-07T08:48:15Z
+1. I use this feature outside of the Form context a lot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-07T08:49:34Z
The classes in the Form component should be kept for BC (and deprecated) for people using the feature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T10:02:19Z
YES YES YES 👍. Sorry for my enthusiasm, but I already copy pasted the PropertyPath class to some of my libraries to avoid linking to the whole Form component. I thus will be glad to officially use this component into my libraries via composer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by norzechowicz at 2013-01-07T10:17:39Z
Same as @michelsalib to avoid linking full Form component I was using copied parts of code. Can't wait to use this component in my lib. 👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T10:43:41Z
I split away `getValue()` and `setValue()` from `PropertyPath` into a new class `ReflectionGraph`. The component is also named ReflectionGraph now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T10:47:10Z
I am not found of the name. What do you intend to do in the component more than what PropertyPath does ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T10:58:59Z
@michelsalib A `PropertyPath` is simply a string like `foo.bar[baz]`. `getValue()` and `setValue()` interpret this path. There may be different interpretations for the same path, so these methods were split into a new class.
I chose the name `ReflectionGraph` because the functionality is very similar to `ReflectionProperty`.
```php
$reflProperty = new ReflectionProperty('Vendor/Class', 'property');
$reflProperty->setValue($object, 'foo');
$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph();
$reflGraph->setValue($object, 'property.path', 'foo');
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T11:00:42Z
What about naming it `Reflection`, maybe sometime we will want to add more reflection tools for classes, interfaces... ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T11:02:32Z
@michelsalib I doubt that we will do that. PHP's implementation is sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-07T11:03:57Z
> Backwards compatibility break: no
Really ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T11:05:07Z
Well, that is just a suggestion. If I am the only one to oppose, I won't complain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T11:09:08Z
> Really ?
@vicb Would you please refrain from such meanginless comments in the future? I'm getting a bit tired of them. If you think that BC is broken somewhere, tell me where so that I can fix it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-07T11:09:43Z
@vicb There is no BC break as he kept deprecated classes for BC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by norzechowicz at 2013-01-07T11:13:12Z
@bschussek what do you think about some kind of factory for Reflection? This will prevent creating new Reflection objects each time you want to access properties values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-07T11:18:47Z
@bschussek my point is that my comment is no more meaningless than closing #6453 because it will break BC.We could also keep BC by extending the classes in the new ns but in both cases BC will ultimately be broken (when the legacy classes are removed)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-07T12:23:45Z
@bschussek @stof I think that modifying the constructor signatures of `EntityChoiceList`, `FormType` are BC breaks (this is not an exhaustive list)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T12:35:13Z
@vicb You are right. I added corresponding entries to the CHANGELOG and adapted the above description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T13:39:13Z
@bschussek looking at this PR, I was wondering if an alternate syntax would make sense:
```php
<?php
$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph($object);
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->setBar('value')
$reflGraph['foo.bar'] = 'value';
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->getBar()
$reflGraph['foo.bar'];
```
_Sorry for the off topic_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T13:49:46Z
The advantage of using such a `ReflectionGraph` factory is that it might be easier to return specialized reflection graphs, ie optimized instances (that would be cached).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Toflar at 2013-01-08T14:49:54Z
I was also puzzled by the fact that there will be many `ReflectionGraph` instances although they don't have to. I'm with @vicb and I'd also vote for using the constructor to set the subject you're working on. Otherwise you'll repeat yourself over and over again by passing the subject - say `$object` - to `getValue()` or `setValue()`. If however you don't like the constructor thing then why do we have to have an instance of `ReflectionGraph` rather than just go for static methods and use `ReflectionGraph::getValue()` and `ReflectionGraph::setValue()`?
In my opinion there are a few methods that could be static anyway (especially some private ones) :)
But probably I misunderstood something as I'm just about to discover the SF components and don't have any experience working with them (so basically I just read the PR because of @bschussek's tweet :D)
Couldn't come up with any intuitive name for the component though :(
Generally when we talk about "getting" and "setting" values we call those things "mutators"...so `GraphMutator` might be more intuitive than the word `Reflection` :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Taluu at 2013-01-08T14:57:42Z
I like the last proposition made by @vicb (implementing `ArrayAccess` on `ReflectionGraph` - or whatever name will be chosen (`PathMutator` for example :D), and also specify which object should be worked on in the constructor rather than in each method).
Would this also be used in the `Validator` component ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-08T15:16:12Z
@Toflar A static ``ReflectionGraph::getValue()`` means you have a coupling to the implementation (as with any static call). The current implementation allows you to replace it with your own implementation as long as you implement the interface as it follows the DI pattern (as done in other places in Symfony).
@vicb The issue with ``$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph($object);`` is that you cannot inject the ReflectionGraph anymore, as you need a new one each time. This would mean adding a ``ReflectionGraphFactory`` to be injected (and which could then be replaced by a factory using code generation). Using the constructor directly would not allow using a replacement based on code generation later. So the resulting code would more likely be
```php
$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph();
$mutator = $reflGraph->getMutator($object);
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->setBar('value')
$mutator['foo.bar'] = 'value';
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->getBar()
$mutator['foo.bar'];
```
Btw, writing this, I find the naming Mutator suggested by @Taluu good when it concerns the setter, but quite weird when getting the value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Taluu at 2013-01-08T15:21:00Z
I was not the one to suggest though, it was @everzet. But then something like `PathAccessor`, as it is both a mutator and a getter ? I also like @stof suggestion, still in the idea of avoiding to have to put the object as an argument and also allowing to use an `ArrayAccess` interface..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T15:21:54Z
@stof your remark makes sense.
What about `Accessor`, the benefit being that it might well be the name of a coming PHP feature: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by everzet at 2013-01-08T15:27:02Z
```php
$manager = new PropertyManager(new PropertyPath());
$num = $manager->getValue($object, 'foo.num');
$manager->setValue($object, 'foo.num', $num + 1);
$objectManager = new ObjectPropertyManager($object[, $manager]);
$num = $objectManager->getValue('foo.num');
$objectManager->setValue('foo.num', $num + 1);
$objectManager['foo.num'] += 1;
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-08T15:28:01Z
It might be me, but I don't like `ArrayAccess` to be misused for features like that. If I access a key in an array access structure, I expect it to be something like a collection, an associative array or a key value store. This class is neither.
Putting that aside, an accessor for a specific object might make sense, but I'm not sure about that yet.
```php
$reflObject->setValue('foo.bar', 'value');
$reflObject->getValue('foo.bar');
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-08T15:28:52Z
@vicb I would vote for PathAccessor then, as we are not doing simple accessor but accessors through a path in an object graph.
In my snippet above, we would then have a ReflectionGraph instance and a PathAccessor instance (``$mutator``).
Btw, I would also keep the methods ``setValue`` and ``getValue``. I find it more clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-08T15:32:07Z
@stof But then we're rather left with the question of ReflectionGraph **vs.** PathAccessor. I don't think that the tiny interface difference (one global, one object-based) justifies the big naming difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T15:33:24Z
> This class is neither.
It might be `$pa['foo.bar[baz]'] = $pa['foo.bar']['baz'];` I don't know if it would help though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-08T15:35:51Z
@bschussek In my suggestion, ``ReflectionGraph`` is a factory for the PathAccessor objects. It is not accessing anymore itself (which would probably continue to cause issues to implement it with code generation). But the naming could indeed be changed to something else.
- Removed useless error handlers around FormEvent as the triggering has
been fixed in it.
- Enhanced the triggering of deprecation errors for places where the BC
method provide some user logic needing to be converted to a new way.
- Enhanced the deprecation messages to mention the replacement whenever
possible.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
cda1621 Move FormInterface too
0544351 Move DeprecationErrorHandler to Test folder so it's not removed when building the zip file
f56a2b9Fix#6374 move FormBuilderInterface from Tests to Test
Discussion
----------
Fix#6374 move FormBuilderInterface from Tests to Test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-12-16T07:47:55Z
Are there any other classes in the tests that might be useful for testing userland forms? ping @bschussek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by colinfrei at 2012-12-16T08:24:51Z
The DeprecationErrorHandler will need to be in the Test directory as well, as its handleBC method is used for handling BC code that's not in tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by colinfrei at 2012-12-16T09:06:51Z
Wanted to make a pull request to tvlooy's branch with the DeprecationErrorHandler stuff, but can't figure out how to do that - the commit is here: ec56379042
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-12-16T19:53:59Z
@fabpot The other extending interfaces provided for mocking purpose (as mocking an interface extending ``Traversable`` directly does not work). So we have FormInterface too at least
* 2.1:
[Console] Add support for parsing terminal width/height on localized windows, fixes#5742
[Form] Fixed treatment of countables and traversables in Form::isEmpty()
refactor ControllerNameParser
[Form] Fixed FileType not to throw an exception when bound empty
- Test undefined index #
Maintain array structure
Check if key # is defined in $value
Update src/Symfony/Component/Validator/Resources/translations/validators.pl.xlf
Commits
-------
eb2eba1 [Form] don't allow users to force exceptions by submitting unexpected data
Discussion
----------
[Form] don't allow users to force exceptions by submitting unexpected data
fix#5334
This makes it more fault-tolerant by simply ignoring wrong stuff from hackers.
@bschussek: I didn't find any other UnexpectedTypeExceptions that could be invoked by simply submitting unexpected data. But I'm not 100% sure that there aren't any indirectly invokeable, e.g. in some listeners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-24T22:34:52Z
a test is missing for this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-08-24T23:02:26Z
@stof true, I will add one
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-08-25T13:51:23Z
Added test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-08-29T11:07:37Z
👍
Could you please squash the commits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-08-29T13:43:52Z
Done.
Commits
-------
7e8ab54 [Form] raise OutOfBoundsException instead of InvalidArgumentException for inexistent form childs to be in line with PropertyPath
Discussion
----------
[Form] raise OutOfBoundsException instead of InvalidArgumentException in Form::get
BC break: yes
Raise OutOfBoundsException instead of InvalidArgumentException in Form::get for inexistent form childs to be in line with PropertyPath, which also uses OutOfBoundsException for invalid indexes. OutOfBoundsException fits much better as it extends RuntimeException instead of LogicException and this error can typically not be detected at compile time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-08-29T11:01:01Z
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2012-08-29T11:07:51Z
Shouldn't this change be noted in upgrade file ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-29T11:23:04Z
it should (and in the changelog of the component)
Commits
-------
0186731 [Form] removed hasParent from FormInterface and deprecated its use
Discussion
----------
[Form] removed hasParent from FormInterface and deprecated its use
There are already 2 alternatives with getParent() and isRoot(), so a third one with similar semantics is confusing and unneeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-08-29T11:11:11Z
👍
Commits
-------
492c990 [Form] optimized PropertyPathMapper to invoke the expensive property path less often
47a8bbd [Form] optimized the binding of child forms and calculation of extra data
8d45539 [Form] refactor Form::bind to save 7 assignments
Discussion
----------
[Form] refactor Form::bind to save 7 assignments and a complete loop
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-24T23:45:18Z
the new code is not equivalent. See travis for the proof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-08-25T01:50:41Z
@stof fixed, I had to reduce the refactoring a little
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-08-29T11:05:52Z
👍
Commits
-------
d5eb4f7 [Form] fix phpdoc of Form::hasErrors
5cb8264 [Form] deprecated Form::hasErrors that isn't part of the Interface
Discussion
----------
[Form] deprecated Form::hasErrors that isn't part of the Interface
This method is not part of FormInterface, so I deprecated it as it cannot be used reliably. This is consistent with other hassers that were deprecated like `hasChildren` where one should use `count` instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-26T19:11:19Z
You should deprecate it, not remove it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-08-26T19:17:35Z
oh right. I thought it was added in 2.1 and thus can be removed but it's also in 2.0.
Done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-08-29T11:00:32Z
👍
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
👍
Commits
-------
9c94b48 [Form] Fixed the "data" option to supersede default data set in the model
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed the "data" option to supersede default data set in the model
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3899
Todo: -
The error message on type mismatch is a bit obscure:
The form's view data is expected to be an instance of class Samson\Bundle\TRSBundle\Entity\Labour, but has the type object. You can avoid this error by setting the "data_class" option to null or by adding a view transformer that transforms object to Samson\Bundle\TRSBundle\Entity\Labour.
This commit changes it to:
The form's view data is expected to be an instance of class Samson\Bundle\TRSBundle\Entity\Labour, but is an instance of Closure. You can avoid this error by setting the "data_class" option to null or by adding a view transformer that transforms an instance of Closure to an instance of Samson\Bundle\TRSBundle\Entity\Labour.
CSRF fields are now only added when the view is built. For this reason we already know if
the form is the root form and avoid to create unnecessary CSRF fields for nested fields.
Commits
-------
e6577de Added a 'post validation' event to the form component.
Discussion
----------
[Form] Add post-validate event
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: n/a
Fixes the following tickets: n/a
Todo: n/a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-03-02T20:34:18Z
ping @bschussek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-03-04T09:19:53Z
I think this is a good idea (It was something missing to properly handle PersistentFile i.e. you should not persist invalid files)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-03-09T22:35:26Z
@jankramer please remove the second commit from this PR (see http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/code/patches.html) in order to make this mergeable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jankramer at 2012-03-10T09:26:04Z
@vicb done, sorry about that commit: overlooked the fact that it was on the same branch...
Commits
-------
de253dd [Form] read_only and disabled attributes
Discussion
----------
[Form] read_only and disabled attributes (closes#1974)
1. Removed ``readOnly`` property from ``Form``, as it is no longer required
2. Introduced ``disabled`` property to ``Form``, behaves exactly like ``readOnly`` used to
3. Added ``disabled`` property to fields, defaults to ``false``, renders as ``disabled="disabled"``
4. A field with positive ``read_only`` property now renders as ``readonly="readonly"``
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by helmer at 2012-01-26T17:46:17Z
I changed ``Form`` and ``FormBuilder`` property ``readOnly`` to ``disabled``. On second thought, this is perhaps not such good change - while readOnly somewhat implied the use-case, disabled no longer does.
Perhaps something else, like ``bindable`` (as not to confuse with read_only attribute of Fields)?
@bschussek, others, any thoughts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-31T06:53:59Z
Please prefix commits with the affected component, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by helmer at 2012-01-31T08:41:03Z
@bschussek Prefixed. Please also see see to [this question](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/3193#issuecomment-3673074)
Commits
-------
601d462 [Form] Added getValidators() to Form class
Discussion
----------
[Form] Added getValidators() to Form class
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
I am working implementing client side validation in a bundle that adds validation rules via a form builder. I am currently unable to pull the validators from the Form class which is making the implementation incredibly difficult.
I noticed that the transformers are currently exposed and based on some feedback I got on IRC I am guessing these weren't exposed simply because no one needed them at the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mlively at 2011-12-28T20:54:41Z
Side note: It would be incredibly helpful to have this in the current branch of symfony. I implemented it on master because it is a new feature, but I would be more than happy to patch it into 2.0 if you would like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by canni at 2012-01-11T10:15:46Z
👍
As this is new feature it cannot fit into 2.0 series, but 2.1 is just few clicks ahead, maybe this feature will fit into ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-31T08:23:05Z
ping @fabpot
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-01-31T08:51:26Z
@mlively could you rebase your branch ? it conflicts with the current master
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mlively at 2012-01-31T21:38:39Z
Yes, I can do that might be later today.
Commits
-------
8dc78bd [Form] Fixed YODA issues
600cec7 [Form] Added missing entries to CHANGELOG and UPGRADE
b154f7c [Form] Fixed docblock and unneeded use statement
399af27 [Form] Implemented checks to assert that values and indices generated in choice lists match their requirements
5f6f75c [Form] Fixed outstanding issues mentioned in the PR
7c70976 [Form] Fixed text in UPGRADE file
c26b47a [Form] Made query parameter name generated by ORMQueryBuilderLoader unique
18f92cd [Form] Fixed double choice fixing
f533ef0 [Form] Added ChoiceView class for passing choice-related data to the view
d72900e [Form] Incorporated changes suggested in PR comments
28d2f6d Removed duplicated lines from UPGRADE file
e1fc5a5 [Form] Restricted form names to specific characters to (1) fix generation of HTML IDs and to (2) avoid problems with property paths.
87b16e7 [Form] Greatly improved ChoiceListInterface and all of its implementations
Discussion
----------
[Form] Improved ChoiceList implementation and made form naming more restrictive
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: **yes**
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #2869, #3021, #1919, #3153
Todo: adapt documentation
The changes in this PR are primarily motivated by the fact that invalid form/field names lead to various problems.
1. When a name contains any characters that are not permitted in HTML "id" attributes, these are invalid
2. When a name contains periods ("."), form validation is broken, because they confuse the property path resolution
3. Since choices in expanded choice fields are directly translated to field names, choices applying to either 1. or 2. lead to problems. But choices should be unrestricted.
4. Unless a choice field is not expanded and does not allow multiple selection, it is not possible to use empty strings as choices, which might be desirable in some occasions.
The solution to these problems is to
* Restrict form names to disallow unpermitted characters (solves 1. and 2.)
* Generate integer indices to be stored in the HTML "id" and "name" attributes and map them to the choices (solves 3.). Can be reverted to the old behaviour by setting the option "index_generation" to ChoiceList::COPY_CHOICE
* Generate integer values to be stored in the HTML "value" attribute and map them to the choices (solves 4.). Can be reverted to the old behaviour by setting the option "value_generation" to ChoiceList::COPY_CHOICE
Apart from these fixes, it is now possible to write more flexible choice lists. One of these is `ObjectChoiceList`, which allows to use objects as choices and is bundled in the core. `EntityChoiceList` has been made an extension of this class.
$form = $this->createFormBuilder()
->add('object', 'choice', array(
'choice_list' => new ObjectChoiceList(
array($obj1, $obj2, $obj3, $obj4),
// property path determining the choice label (optional)
'name',
// preferred choices (optional)
array($obj2, $obj3),
// property path for object grouping (optional)
'category',
// property path for value generation (optional)
'id',
// property path for index generation (optional)
'id'
)
))
->getForm()
;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-01-19T18:09:09Z
Rather than passing `choices` and a `choice_labels` arrays to the view would it make sense to introduce a `ChoiceView` class and pass one array of objects?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-01-22T15:32:36Z
@bschussek can you update your PR according to the feedback (and rebase it as it conflicts according to github) ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-24T00:15:42Z
@kriswallsmith fixed
Fixed all outstanding issues. Would be glad if someone could review again, otherwise this PR is ready to merge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-01-25T15:17:59Z
Is it ready to be merged?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-01-25T15:35:50Z
Yes I think so. He said it's ready to be merged when reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-26T02:30:36Z
Yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-28T12:39:00Z
Fixed outstanding issues. Ready for merge.
