Commits
-------
23bad29 Added translation to placeholder and title attributes
Discussion
----------
Added translation to placeholder and title attributes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-05-03T13:52:38Z
Better translate it where it is defined.
Dynamic translations are usually not desirable as they cannot be automatically extracted, and thus require more work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ruimarinho at 2012-05-03T13:57:30Z
@schmittjoh but isn't that the same case as with labels for instance? I don't think injecting the translator service into the form type would require less work than what this PR suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-05-03T14:02:02Z
Yeah, same thing.
There might be some cases where it's fine, but in general, we should try to not translate dynamic vars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ruimarinho at 2012-05-03T14:17:44Z
@schmittjoh I think that's one of those cases, since these attributes in particular (title and placeholder) are intended to aid the user with a brief description. I understand (and agree) with your concern regarding dynamic vars, but in my opinion this is a use case where it is worth it. Just my two cents :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-05-03T18:07:01Z
@schmittjoh the issue is that translating the label before the template would require injecting the translator in the form types (as the form label can be set there) and would force the user to duplicate the translation process if they pass the label explicitly in the template.
Commits
-------
246c885 [Form] Fixed: Default value of 'error_bubbling' is now determined by the 'single_control' option
d3bb4d0 [Form] Renamed option 'primitive' to 'single_control'
167e64f [Form] Fixed: Field attributes are not rendered in the label anymore. Label attributes are now passed in "label_attr"
68018a1 [Form] Dropped useless test that is guaranteed by OptionsParser tests and that needs to be adapted very often
649752c [Form] Fixed: CSRF token was not displayed on empty complex forms
c623fcf [Form] Fixed: CSRF protection did not run if token was missing
eb75ab1 [Form] Fixed results of the FieldType+FormType merge.
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed errors introduced in the FieldType+FormType merge
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3994, #4000, #2294, #4118
Todo: -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-22T15:39:20Z
`primitive` is a pretty abstract option name. It depends on the person what he considers primitive. Maybe more explicit naming or better documentation what it means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-22T15:47:29Z
Better suggestions?
The distinction here is between primitive and complex forms, where primitive forms are such forms that can be represented by a single HTML tag. This obviously needs to be documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-22T15:49:45Z
Maybe `single_widget` or something like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T13:09:43Z
@Tobion @bschussek would `elementary` be better than `primitive` ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T13:17:04Z
and `compound \ composite` better than `complex` ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T14:08:33Z
@vicb I fail to see how elementary/compound is easier to understand than primitive/complex. Maybe single_widget, but what's the opposite of this case? multi_widget?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T14:15:09Z
Actually I am fine with anything... as long as it is documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T14:22:31Z
Still I think that this unveals a more profound naming problem. How do we (also in the documentation) name forms with children (formerly "forms") and forms without children (formerly "fields")?
Should we refer to them as
* forms and fields?
* complex and primitive forms?
* ...
We must first answer this question before we can find an intuitive option name. If the documentation always switches between different terminologies, neither will it be understandable nor will this option be easy to remember.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T15:10:32Z
> Still I think that this unveals a more profound naming problem. How do we (also in the documentation) name forms with children (formerly "forms") and forms without children (formerly "fields")?
To make it clear, I would rather say forms that **can have** children and forms that **can not have** children (i.e. Empty collections have no children but they can have and this is reason why you have to introduce those options, right ? - that could be a good example for the doc).
It will probably be better to refer to "complex" / "primitive" forms in the doc (and use the "form" / "field" terms to explain them).
Note: I think @Tobion concern is that "primitive" / "complex" could be pejorative terms (this is why I have proposed "elementary" / "compound").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-23T16:00:54Z
1. primitive/complex is subjective (and could be pejorative too)
2. elementary/compound is more explicit so probably better than primitive/complex
3. I dislike this option in general. Does it make sense to change this option from a user perspective? I guess it's always the same as long as the widget structure stays the same. So it should be resolved at a higher level dynamically from the widget structure and not exposed to any configuration.
4. In documentation I would use the terms forms and fields. Because all people with HTML knowledge will understand that fields cannot have sub-fields whereas forms can. But since this distinction is not findable in code, it should be mentioned that all these are implemented as a form hierarchy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mvrhov at 2012-04-23T16:02:00Z
how about simple and complex?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T16:06:33Z
@Tobion It does not make sense to change this option from the user perspective, still the overloading type has to propagate to FormType whether it is a form or a field, so that the default behaviour is correct.
A second option how to implement this is to add a method `isField` to FormTypeInterface that can be overloaded and receives the options. I don't really like to introduce new methods here unless absolutely required.
What about renaming the option "primitive" to "is_field"? The blocks in the template would then be named "form_widget_field" and "form_widget_form".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by tristanbes at 2012-04-25T14:01:06Z
Oh, I should've seen this before, i thought I was doing something wrong. (empty collections gets an input field bug)
Please big :UP: on this. When will it be merged ? @bschussek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-25T15:30:28Z
+1 for "is_field" and "form_widget_field" but I would rather use "form_widget_compound" instead of "form_widget_form" which is quite strange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-26T16:34:04Z
@Tobion "simple" and "compound" then?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-26T16:49:58Z
no "field" and "compound"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-26T17:17:02Z
I don't like "field" for a simple reason: Consider the "date" type. We are typically speaking of the "date" field there. But technically, the "date" field is a compound field. So?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-26T21:17:37Z
I don't understand the open question. You proposed "is_field" and "form_widget_field" yourself. So calling the template block "form_widget_field" is a comprehensible consequence of "is_field". I wouldn't call the date type with multiple inputs a field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by tristanbes at 2012-04-26T21:52:39Z
We should take a decision cause right here i got all my forms that are broken because of the empty collection rendering as input field :-).
I guess we are many in that situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-27T08:28:16Z
I renamed "primitive" to "single_control" now to match with the HTML specification which names all input elements (input, select etc.) "controls". The opposite is now "compound".
Meanwhile, I added a fix for #4118.
@fabpot This is ready for merge now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-27T10:22:49Z
Hm, I know naming things is hard and sometimes not really important. But since users need to know which block to override, it is essential to make it clear. I think there is still one issue.
The block is named `form_widget_single_control` in order, as you said, to abstract away if it's an input, select etc. But in fact it can only render `input` and nothing else. So this is misleading.
So you could also simply name it `form_widget_input`.
Apart from that I agree with everything.
Commits
-------
f9a486e [Validator] Added support for pluralization of the SizeLengthValidator
c0715f1 [FrameworkBundle], [TwigBundle] added support for form error message pluralization
7a6376e [Form] added support for error message pluralization
345981f [Validator] added support for plural messages
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Added support for plural error messages
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Todo: create translations for en and update others (FrameworkBundle)
[](http://travis-ci.org/hason/symfony)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011-05-14T20:41:01Z
@bschussek: What's your opinion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-09-04T13:14:29Z
@hason could you rebase your branch on top of master and update the PR ?
You also need to change the messages in the constraint that uses the pluralization to a pluralized format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-10-16T18:06:22Z
@hason ping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-11-11T14:58:19Z
@hason ping again
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-12-12T20:39:10Z
@hason ping again. Can you update your PR ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2011-12-12T21:29:14Z
@stof I hope that I will update PR this week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-15T19:07:32Z
Looks good to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by canni at 2012-02-02T17:28:54Z
@hason can you update this PR and squash commits, it conflicts with current master
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2012-02-09T07:21:41Z
@stof, @canni Rebased.
What is the best solution for the translation of messages?
1. Change messages in the classes and all xliff files?
2. Keep messages in the classes and change all xliff files?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-09T08:19:41Z
The constraints contain the en message so you will need to modify them to update the message
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2012-02-09T08:55:55Z
I prefer second option. The Validator component should be decoupled from the Translation component. The constraints contain the en message which is also the key for Translation component. We should create validators.en.xlf in the FrameworkBundle for en message. I think that this is better solution. What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-04T02:22:02Z
@hason Please rebase your branch. It conflicts with master because of the move of the tests
@fabpot ping
