Commits
-------
3a5e84f [Validator] Add CollectionSize constraint
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Add CollectionSize constraint
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
I will also send a PR to the documentation as soon as this one is accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-29T08:24:28Z
-1
I dislike the rising amount of very specific constraints in the core. Can't we add this to Size?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-29T09:01:39Z
@bschussek #3918 implements what you propose but then the messages are not valid any more:
```php
<?php
public $minMessage = 'This value should be {{ limit }} or more';
public $maxMessage = 'This value should be {{ limit }} or less';
public $invalidMessage = 'This value should be a valid number';
```
I can imagine 2 solutions:
- adding some more message,
- rename the `Size` constraint to `Range` and create a new `Size` constraint for arrays / countables.
What do you think ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-29T09:27:53Z
I'd prefer the second solution and merge `Size` with `SizeLength` as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-29T09:34:50Z
@bschussek It would make sense. @makasim @Herzult any one of you would like to contribute this (i.e. rename the current Size to Range and create a new Size supporting arrays / countables / strings) ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-04-29T14:31:12Z
Yep, I'm on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-29T15:22:44Z
@Herzult could you take the other comment into account and merge SizeLength into you Size ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-29T15:33:05Z
The guessers should also be modified (it might also affect the ODM which is in an other repo, if so it would be good to sync the changes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-04-29T16:38:19Z
@stof the problem merging SizeLength into Size is that they don't have the same required options & messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-04-29T16:47:40Z
And what about renaming Range to Interval and SizeLength to IntervalLength?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-29T16:54:38Z
Well, SizeLength is about matching the length of a string currently. Nothing related to intervals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-04-29T17:29:40Z
Here are the current names:
* **Size** for collection (countable) size
* **Range** for numbers
* **SizeLength** for strings
Merging **SizeLength** into **Size** is maybe not appropriate because collections and strings are different things. It'll be hard to find messages that fit both collections and strings. Maybe we had better to find a better name for both. What do you think?
About the ValidatorTypeGuesser, I'll update it as soon as we know ow to name the constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-29T17:43:01Z
Size is a good name for both strings and "collections", could we have two sets of strings and select according to the type ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-04-29T22:39:55Z
I tried to merge them together, what do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-30T06:52:37Z
I think your changes are great, may be @bschussek has more feedback. The ValidatorTypeGuesser and the translation are yet to be updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hhamon at 2012-05-01T12:32:28Z
Am I missing something or `SizeLength` for strings is a duplicate for `MinLength` and `MaxLength` constraints?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-05-02T13:29:36Z
Yep, that's true. But the only link between this PR and the SizeLength constraint is that I merged it to the one I introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Herzult at 2012-05-07T07:48:01Z
@bschussek what do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-10T19:51:26Z
@Herzult this PR looks good to me, could you update the changelog and update guides, try to factorize the code and squash the commits ? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-11T15:42:35Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1306112) (merged 8d8e6443 into 4ac3bddb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-11T21:42:21Z
* could #4259 be helpful ?
* please squash the commits.
* please create a PR / issue on [symfony-docs](https://github.com/symfony/symfony-docs)
thanks for the updates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-13T18:38:18Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1321123) (merged eeda9044 into 4ac3bddb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-13T18:45:12Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1321146) (merged 491ca19a into 8b54eb56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-14T11:29:39Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1326110) (merged 44865024 into 8b54eb56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-14T11:49:37Z
@Herzult what about plural translations ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-14T16:52:37Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1328677) (merged 93480f95 into 46ffbd52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-14T17:03:13Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1328705) (merged 326c3b81 into 46ffbd52).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-14T20:19:18Z
thanks for the updates, this PR looks fine to me. @bschussek ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-16T06:45:51Z
@Herzult can you squash your commits ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-16T11:20:44Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1344811) (merged 3a5e84f4 into 58b6ef23).
[Validator] Rename constraint Size to Range
[Validator] Rename constraint CollectionSize to Size
[Validator] Merge the SizeLength into the Size constraint
[Validator] Update messages in Size constraint for consistancy
[Validator] Add english and french translation for Size messages
[Validator] Tweak expected types for exceptions in SizeValidator
[Validator] Fix CS in SizeValidator
[Validator] Update the ValidatorTypeGuesser
[Validator] Tweak SizeValidator
[Validator] Update CHANGELOG
[Validator] Complete previous CHANGELOG updates
[Form] Update validator type guesser
[Validator] Pluralize collection size english messages
[Validator] Pluralize Size french messages
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.
English:
The value is not a country.
Danish translation in the latest commit:
Denne værdi er ikke et land.
Danish translation in the first commit and mine version:
Værdien er ikke et land
So this commit is simply to make the danish translation the same, and
not two different expressions..
