* 2.1:
Added Base64 encoding, decoding to MongoDBProfilerStorage
Fix duplicated code and a field name
refactor src/Symfony/Component/Translation/Loader/MoFileLoader.php
fixed typo
Update src/Symfony/Component/Validator/Resources/translations/validators.pl.xlf
fixed issue #5596 (Broken DOM with the profiler's toolbar set in position top)
[Form] Fixed the testsuite for PHPUnit 3.6 as travis still uses it
added dirs generated by build-data.php in locale component to .gitignore
[Process] Fixed bug introduced by 7bafc69f38.
[Process][Tests] Prove process fail (Add more test case)
[Process][Tests] Prove process fail
[HttpFoundation] Fixed the tests
[DomCrawler] Added test for supported encodings by mbstring
[Config] Fixed preserving keys in associative arrays
[Console] Fixed return value for Command::run
[Locale] Fixed tests
[Console] Fix some input tests
[Filesystem] Fixed tests on Windows
[Config] Fixed tests on Windows
* 2.1:
fixed stringification of array objects in RequestDataCollector (closes#5295)
[HttpFoundation] removed the username and password from generated URL as generated by the Request class (closes#5555)
[Console] fixed default argument display (closes#5563)
Fixing config normalisation example in docblock
* 2.0:
fixed stringification of array objects in RequestDataCollector (closes#5295)
Fixing config normalisation example in docblock
Conflicts:
src/Symfony/Bridge/Doctrine/DataCollector/DoctrineDataCollector.php
src/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/DataCollector/RequestDataCollector.php
Commits
-------
71db836 Better config validation handling for numerical values: * New node type Integer and Float * New expressions: min() and max()
Discussion
----------
[2.2] [Config] Better handling for numerical values:
* New node type Integer and Float
* New expressions: ifLessThan(), ifGreaterThan(), ifInRange(), ifNotInRange()
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-03T08:50:22Z
As I said on PR #4713, adding more method clutters the API without any big benefits. I'm -1 on the PR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-03T08:54:36Z
I have been discuss it with @schmittjoh at the sflive, he was thinking it could be a good addition.
IMHO I think that if we want to encourage the usage of bundle configuration validation, we should make it as easy as possible to use...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-03T08:59:42Z
A real life example:
->scalarNode('max_nb_items')
->validate()
->ifTrue(function($v){
return !is_int($v) || (is_int($v) && $v<1);
})
->thenInvalid('Must be a positive integer')
->end()
->end()
could be replaced by
->integerNode('max_nb_items')
->validate()
->ifLessThan(1);
->thenInvalid('Must be a positive integer')
->end()
->end()
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by gnutix at 2012-07-03T09:03:06Z
I agree with @jeanmonod on this matter, the bundle configuration validation is already kind of a hassle to understand (and read), so it would be a good addition IMHO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-03T10:54:32Z
@schmittjoh What's your point of view?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-07-03T14:10:37Z
The integer and float nodes are valuable additions imo which I wanted to add myself several times but simply did not have the time for.
As for the changes to the expression builder, I was not really passionate about them in Paris, but I did not mind either way. However, looking at this PR, I think they would be better implemented as methods on the definition builders, and validated directly by the nodes:
```php
$builder->integerNode('foo')->range(1, 4)->end();
$builder->integerNode('foo')->mustBeGreaterThan(5)->end();
```
This will also allow for these constraints to be introspected and added to generated documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-03T17:57:25Z
@jeanmonod Can you take into account the comments by @schmittjoh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-03T19:40:24Z
@fabpot Yes, I will try to move those 4 checks.
@schmittjoh If I put those tests into the ScalarNodeDefinition did you think it's ok? And did I have to make anything special for the documentation introspection?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-07-03T19:56:00Z
You can take a look at the EnumNodeDefinition, and the EnumNode. They are
pretty simple, and should give you a good idea of how to implement it.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Jeanmonod David <
reply@reply.github.com
> wrote:
> @fabpot Yes, I will try to move those 4 checks.
>
> @schmittjoh If I put those tests into the ScalarNodeDefinition did you
> think it's ok? And did I have to make anything special for the
> documentation introspection?
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/4714#issuecomment-6744309
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-03T21:37:18Z
OK, I just refactor as requested. At the end, I didn't add the range() check. It can be easily done by chaining min and max, like this:
$builder->integerNode('foo')->min(1)->max(4)->end();
@schmittjoh can you have a look?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-07-03T21:48:17Z
Have you tested the builder API? Did you maybe forget to commit something?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-03T21:52:45Z
Yes you are right, I forget the definition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-03T22:15:45Z
OK, I realize now that I misunderstood the concept. I was thinking that a node was able to do self validation. But no, I will have to move my code to the node definition. So let's wait for a new commit...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-06T06:13:55Z
@schmittjoh I just push the move to definition and the new abstract class Numeric. Can you review it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-10T05:12:59Z
@schmittjoh, @fabpot
I fix all the mention points, can you have a look at the final result?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-07-10T06:38:20Z
There are still some excessive blank lines if you want to be perfect, but overall looks good now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-07-10T07:05:54Z
@schmittjoh I think the comments of @Baachi are not well placed in the diff. I execute php-cs-fix on all code, so level of perfectness is already good ;)
@fabpot Do you want some more complements before merging?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-10T07:07:21Z
@jeanmonod I'm going to review the code once more and it will be merged for 2.2. Thanks for your work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-09-18T13:58:48Z
@jeanmonod Can you squash your commits before I merge? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-09-18T14:36:59Z
@fabpot Squash done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-09-19T04:07:13Z
@jeanmonod One last thing: can you submit a PR on symfony/symfony-docs that update the documentation with the new possibilities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jeanmonod at 2012-09-20T05:32:01Z
@fabpot OK, Documentation PR done here: https://github.com/symfony/symfony-docs/pull/1732
Commits
-------
b7fc009 [Config] Numerical keys for prot. arrays if useAttributeAsKey is set
Discussion
----------
[Config] Numerical keys for prot. arrays if useAttributeAsKey is set
Bug fix: not sure
Feature addition: not sure
Backwards compatibility break: not sure
Symfony2 tests pass: [](http://travis-ci.org/asm89/symfony)
License of the code: MIT
When using an array node with children of prototype array and `useAttributeAsKey`, using numerical values for the keys throws an exception. For example (`useAttributeAsKey('id')`):
``` php
<?php
// works
array (
'thing' => array(
array('foo', 'bar', 'id' => 'a')
)
);
// works and is the same as above
array (
'thing' => array(
'a' => array('foo', 'bar')
)
);
// works
array(
'thing' => array(
array('foo', 'bar', 'id' => 42), array('baz', 'qux', 'id' => 1337),
),
);
// works with this patch and is the same as above
array(
'thing' => array(
42 => array('foo', 'bar'), 1337 => array('baz', 'qux'),
),
);
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-14T14:26:32Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1327383) (merged 42d252da into 46ffbd52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-14T14:32:59Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1327430) (merged b7fc0093 into 46ffbd52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-21T15:16:24Z
Could this be fixed by changing [PrototypedArrayNode](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Component/Config/Definition/PrototypedArrayNode.php#L255)
`$k = $v[$this->keyAttribute];` -> `$k = (string) $v[$this->keyAttribute];`
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-05-22T07:01:53Z
I tried it and the test I added still fails. The code change you propose doesn't execute because `if (!isset($v[$this->keyAttribute]) && is_int($k))` will still evaluate to true.
Commits
-------
fc4e628 [Config] added append to the node builder
Discussion
----------
[Config] added append to the node builder
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
BC break: no
test pass: true
the problem is that i can only append a node if i have an array node, but if the current node is the node builder i can not append a node (and i think the node builder is like a array node).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by tecbot at 2011/11/16 23:23:16 -0800
@fabpot: any chance to merge this?
The Config component API have changed and the extension configuration files must be updated accordingly:
1. Array nodes must enclosed their children definition in ->children() ... ->end() calls:
Before:
$treeBuilder->root('zend', 'array')
->arrayNode('logger')
->scalarNode('priority')->defaultValue('INFO')->end()
->booleanNode('log_errors')->defaultFalse()->end()
->end();
After:
$treeBuilder->root('zend', 'array')
->children()
->arrayNode('logger')
->children()
->scalarNode('priority')->defaultValue('INFO')->end()
->booleanNode('log_errors')->defaultFalse()->end()
->end()
->end()
->end();
2. The 'builder' method (in NodeBuilder) has been dropped in favor of an 'append' method (in ArrayNodeDefinition)
Before:
$treeBuilder->root('doctrine', 'array')
->arrayNode('dbal')
->builder($this->getDbalConnectionsNode())
->end();
After:
$treeBuilder->root('doctrine', 'array')
->children()
->arrayNode('dbal')
->append($this->getDbalConnectionsNode())
->end()
->end();
3. The root of a TreeBuilder is now an NodeDefinition (and most probably an ArrayNodeDefinition):
Before:
$root = $treeBuilder->root('doctrine', 'array');
$this->addDbalSection($root);
public function addDbalSection(NodeBuilder $node)
{
...
}
After:
$root = $treeBuilder->root('doctrine', 'array');
$this->addDbalSection($root);
public function addDbalSection(ArrayNodeDefinition $node)
{
...
}
4. The NodeBuilder API has changed (this is seldom used):
Before:
$node = new NodeBuilder('connections', 'array');
After:
The recommended way is to use a tree builder:
$treeBuilder = new TreeBuilder();
$node = $treeBuilder->root('connections', 'array');
An other way would be:
$builder = new NodeBuilder();
$node = $builder->node('connections', 'array');
Some notes:
- Tree root nodes should most always be array nodes, so this as been made the default:
$treeBuilder->root('doctrine', 'array') is equivalent to $treeBuilder->root('doctrine')
- There could be more than one ->children() ... ->end() sections. This could help with the readability:
$treeBuilder->root('doctrine')
->children()
->scalarNode('default_connection')->end()
->end()
->fixXmlConfig('type')
->children()
->arrayNode('types')
....
->end()
->end()
This allows for configuration options that must accept arbitrary variables. Even if the node's value is an array, VariableNode will not perform any special processing/merging as is done for ArrayNode. It functionally behaves like a ScalarNode.
I had thought that this was unnecessary - when would you ever want to just let "extra" options fail silently?
But, the SecurityExtension takes advantage of this by creating two separate config trees. The first tree looks for just one particular value on the configuration array and ignores the rest. So, there *is* a use-case for allowing all extra fields to simply be ignored, though this should not be the norm.
We decided that this is not necessary and that it's leaving too many things wide open. Instead, in these cases where we have an array with unknown items, a prototype should be used.
Further functionality will need to be added later to allow you to specify a few nodes that you *do* know about under an array and then also specify a prototype to catch everything else.
This is *usually* what you want (and is defaulted this way). If you have an entry in an array *just* so it can become the key to that entry later, then you shouldn't normally still need it in the resulting array.
The importance of this comes in with validation. Since we're throwing an exception if you have any unrecognized options, the presence of the "key" field in the resulting array will cause issues when it's not needed.
