Commits
-------
bfe5e58 [Form] fixed typo in docblock
Discussion
----------
[Form] fixed typo in docblock
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-15T20:03:08Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1630865) (merged bfe5e585 into f881d282).
Commits
-------
b5cf337 [Form] Enhanced the form error message
Discussion
----------
[Form] Enhanced the form error message
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
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 class 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 class Samson\Bundle\TRSBundle\Entity\Labour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-12T14:04:08Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1601478) (merged 70a15df6 into 77839690).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-12T14:06:31Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1601507) (merged 12ec4dbd into 77839690).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-12T14:13:09Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1601517) (merged b5cf337c into 77839690).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-06-12T18:21:31Z
👍 Thanks!
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.
Commits
-------
a30f4a0 [Form] cleanup
Discussion
----------
[Form] cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-27T19:47:21Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1450050) (merged 09574f4b into adf07f1e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-27T19:57:42Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1450149) (merged a8c63d72 into adf07f1e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-05-27T20:00:13Z
thanks a bunch @travisbot !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-28T06:52:52Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1453555) (merged a30f4a03 into adf07f1e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-05-28T09:20:05Z
Thank you Victor! 👍
Commits
-------
59c4f55 a few minor changes
Discussion
----------
a few minor changes / cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-27T07:58:52Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1446431) (merged bb7ae326 into 9e951991).
Commits
-------
b4e2818 [Form] Using new methods instead of the deprecated
Discussion
----------
[Form] Using new methods instead of the deprecated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-25T21:05:11Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1436891) (merged b4e28186 into ff4d446c).
fixed bug with parent property
fix is_required field
fixed subform translation_domain inheritance
some translation_domain inheritance code refactoring
added form type translation_domain inheritance tests
changed methods place in form type test
changed arguments in createNamed method call in FormTypeTest
Commits
-------
82c221a [Form] Fixed strict "data_class" check to work with instances of \ArrayAccess
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed collection type to work with recent Form changes
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by tristanbes at 2012-05-22T16:42:36Z
Ping @fabpot Could you please merge it ASAP, because this bugs breaks all forms containing collection type.
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-22T16:54:24Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1401580) (merged 82c221a1 into 1a1403f5).
Commits
-------
f883953 TypeGuess fixed for Date/Time constraints
41bed29 [Form] fixed invalid 'type' option in ValidatorTypeGuesser for Date/TimeFields
Discussion
----------
[Form] fixed invalid 'type' option in ValidatorTypeGuesser for Date/TimeFields
Automatic field type guessing breaks, if you use any of the Date/Time
constraints (i.e. Symfony\Component\Validator\Constraints\DateTime), since these field types have no 'type' option defined.
(See getDefaultOptions() in DateTimeType.php)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-10T15:25:16Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1296309) (merged 005bdbb0 into 68eca0f9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-05-18T15:50:39Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1367774) (merged f8839532 into a04acc89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by TonyMalz at 2012-05-18T15:58:57Z
@bschussek Ok, changed it to 'input'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-05-22T08:18:27Z
👍
This reverts commit 5182a0c2c4.
PropertyPath instances should be empty. If you have an empty property path string, there is no need to create a PropertyPath instance for it.
Conflicts:
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/Form/PropertyPathTest.php
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
-------
95727ff [OptionsResolver] Updated PHP requirements to 5.3.3
1c5f6c7 [OptionsResolver] Fixed issues mentioned in the PR comments
d60626e [OptionsResolver] Fixed clear() and remove() method in Options class
2b46975 [OptionsResolver] Fixed Options::replace() method
16f7d20 [OptionsResolver] Improved implementation and clarity of the Options class
6ce68b1 [OptionsResolver] Removed reference to non-existing property
9c76750 [OptionsResolver] Fixed doc and block nesting
876fd9b [OptionsResolver] Implemented fluid interface
95454f5 [OptionsResolver] Fixed typos
256b708 [OptionsParser] Renamed OptionsParser to OptionsResolver
04522ca [OptionsParser] Added method replaceDefaults()
b9d053e [Form] Moved Options classes to new OptionsParser component
Discussion
----------
Extracted OptionsResolver component out of Form
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
This PR refactors the options-related code of the Form component into a separate component. See the README file for usage examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-04-17T18:11:03Z
To me it seems like we have some redundancy with the Config/Definition component. I'm wondering if these two can/should be merged somehow?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-04-17T18:14:44Z
I would also suggest merging this into the Config component. Its current name too closely resembles Python's optparser lib, which could create confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-17T18:18:49Z
Merge conflict artifacts are fixed now.
@schmittjoh Do we? Isn't the idea of the Config component to read complex configuration from different configuration providers? (YAML, XML, Annotations etc.)
The idea of this parser is to be highly performant and to be usable in simple classes. If this can be achieved with the Config component, I'm happy to learn more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-04-17T18:27:08Z
The config component is basically a super intelligent version of array_merge and the like.
About performance, I haven't really done any tests to say something about the impact. I think it's safe to say that it would be at least slower than your implementation in its current form due to the additional indirection. However, we could probably add a caching layer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-17T18:31:22Z
Have you checked the README I wrote? Are you sure the Config component is intended for the same purpose and not *way* too complex in this case?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-17T18:51:14Z
You also forgot to update the ``replace`` section of the root composer.json file.
And regarding doing such thing with the Config Definition stuff, it would be more difficult: it builds the tree of values with their defaults, and then merges stuff coming from different sources. The form component however receives defaults from different places (which also define the allowed keys at the same time) and then receives user options only once. And it needs to handle easily default values which depend from other values. So I think both implementations are useful for different needs (however, we could argue about making it a subnamespace in the Config component, but this would add yet another different stuff in it)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jalliot at 2012-04-17T18:58:03Z
@bschussek You need to add this component to the main composer.json too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2012-04-18T06:54:17Z
doesn't this overlap a bit with the ``TreeBuilder`` in the Config component?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2012-04-18T06:59:12Z
ah just saw @stof's comment .. i think the biggest argument against TreeBuilder is that it was designed for a very specific purpose and performance wasn't one of them. where as Form needs something that performs fast. so yeah i do see different use cases, but i don't think this means we should have a new component.
furthermore while i haven't read the code in details i am surprised it doesn't make use of http://php.net/manual/en/function.array-replace-recursive.php to merge defaults into a user supplied options array.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-18T08:10:49Z
@stof, @jalliot: Fixed.
> furthermore while i haven't read the code in details i am surprised it doesn't make use of http://php.net/manual/en/function.array-replace-recursive.php to merge defaults into a user supplied options array.
@lsmith77: Because that's not what this component does. The key feature of this component is to resolve default values of options that depend on the *concrete* values of other options. I invite you to read the README.
Is it a good idea to merge this into Config? I think that both components address different audiences and different purposes. The idea of this one is to initialize classes with simple, run-time provided arrays. The idea of Config is to load and validate complex configurations from storage providers, such as the filesystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-18T08:18:48Z
Note: Not all relevant code of this component is shown in the diff. The (crucial) Options and LazyOption classes have only been moved out of Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2012-04-18T08:20:02Z
> Is it a good idea to merge this into Config? I think that both components address different audiences and different purposes. The idea of this one is to initialize classes with simple, run-time provided arrays. The idea of Config is to load and validate complex configuration values from the filesystem (typically).
decoupled is all fine, but to me this feels a bit too granular. but i am just expressing a gut feeling here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jalliot at 2012-04-18T08:34:03Z
I think too it should be included in the config component (maybe in a subnamespace). Indeed the behaviour is too different to be merged into the current component but its purpose is similar and is all about *configuration* (hence the name of the component). Otherwise we could also split the current Config component into smaller components as it seems to me there are already parts of it that are totally unrelated to each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-18T11:30:55Z
@jalliot Can you go into detail which parts that are and what changes you suggest?
@kriswallsmith Any other naming suggestion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jalliot at 2012-04-18T11:34:35Z
@bschussek I don't know the current component well enough but that's the impression I had last time I looked at its code but I may be wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-18T19:30:43Z
@bschussek the Definition subnamespace of the Config component is standalone. It is not directly related to the Loader part
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-19T09:32:48Z
@stof So what do you recommend?
I think this is also a question of marketing. Is the Definition subnamespace intended to be used totally separately of the loaders? What are the use cases? If there are good use cases, it makes sense to me to extract the Definition part into a separate component. Otherwise not.
It is also a question of marketing, because the purpose of a component should be communicable in simple words (quoting @fabpot). The purpose of Config is (copied from the README):
> Config provides the infrastructure for loading configurations from different data sources and optionally monitoring these data sources for changes. There are additional tools for validating, normalizing and handling of defaults that can optionally be used to convert from different formats to arrays.
I think this purpose is completely different than that of OptionsParser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-19T11:39:50Z
The current description itself shows the current state: what is advocated as the main goal of the component (and was the original part) is the loader stuff. But the Definition part (mentioned as "additional tools") is bigger in term of LOC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-19T11:55:17Z
@stof: Yes, this is a fact, but what's your opinion? How do we proceed with this PR?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-19T12:21:44Z
Well, my opinion is that the current Config component may deserve to be split into 2 components (as someone may need only part of it). But this would be a huge BC break. @fabpot what do you think ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T10:14:57Z
@fabpot Can we merge this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-05-10T06:45:20Z
@bschussek I'm +1 for this PR but as mentioned by @kriswallsmith, we must find another name as `OptionsParser` immediately make me think of something related to the CLI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-05-10T06:47:45Z
However, after thinking about it again, I would vote for keeping it in its own component instead of adding yet another independant part in Config, to avoid forcing Form users to get the whole Config component
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-05-10T09:09:36Z
I'm having difficulties finding a better name. The main difference to CLI option parsers is that these actualy *parse* a string, while this class only receives an array of options (does not do any parsing). Otherwise both have the same purpose.
A couple of other suggestions:
* OptionsLoader (likely confused with our filesystem loaders)
* OptionsResolver
* OptionsMerger
* OptionsMatcher (not accurate)
* OptionsBuilder (likely confused with the builder pattern)
* OptionsJoiner
* OptionsBag (likely confused with the session bags)
* OptionsConfig (likely confused with Config)
* OptionsDefinition (likely confused with Config\Definition)
* OptionsSpec
* OptionsCombiner
* OptionsInitializer
* OptionsComposer
The difficulty is to find a name that best reflects its purpose:
```
$parser->setDefaults(...);
$parser->setRequired(...);
$parser->setOptional(...);
$parser->setAllowedValues(...)
$parser->parse($userOptions);
```
The only of the above examples that makes sense to me here is OptionsResolver -> resolve($userOptions).
Ideas?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-05-10T09:56:54Z
OptionsResolver seems a better name than OptionsParser
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by luxifer at 2012-05-10T09:59:45Z
Agree with @stof
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by r1pp3rj4ck at 2012-05-10T10:03:53Z
I don't really like the plural in the name, but OptionsResolver seems better than OptionsParser. OptionResolver maybe?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by sstok at 2012-05-10T10:10:14Z
@r1pp3rj4ck Options makes more sense as they can be nested/deeper, and thus are multiple.
Agree with @stof also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by r1pp3rj4ck at 2012-05-10T10:13:01Z
@sstok well, we have multiple events too and the name is EventDispatcher, not EventsDispatcher. Actually none of the component names are plural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by newicz at 2012-05-10T10:33:50Z
OptionsResolver - I find it suggesting that there is some kind of problem to be resolved and there's not,
maybe OptionsDefiner but it isn't good aswell this is a tough one
