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
This TwigEngine implements the interface available in the component.
the TwigBridge in TwigBundle now extends this class and provides only
the additional methods for the FrameworkBundle interface.
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
-------
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.
Commits
-------
753c067 [FrameworkBundle] added $view['form']->csrfToken() helper
e1aced8 [Twig] added {{ csrf_token() }} helper
Discussion
----------
[Twig] [FrameworkBundle] added CSRF token helper
I've added a templating helper and Twig function for generating a CSRF token without the overhead of creating a form.
```html+jinja
<form action="{{ path('user_delete', { 'id': user.id }) }}" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="_method" value="delete">
<input type="hidden" name="_token" value="{{ csrf_token('delete_user_' ~ user.id) }}">
<button type="submit">delete</button>
</form>
```
```php
<?php
class UserController extends Controller
{
public function delete(User $user, Request $request)
{
$csrfProvider = $this->get('form.csrf_provider');
if (!$csrfProvider->isCsrfTokenValid('delete_user_'.$user->getId(), $request->request->get('_token')) {
throw new RuntimeException('CSRF attack detected.');
}
// etc...
}
}
```
The test that is failing on Travis appears to be unrelated, but I may be wrong?
```
1) Symfony\Bundle\SecurityBundle\Tests\Functional\LocalizedRoutesAsPathTest::testLoginLogoutProcedure with data set #1 ('de')
RuntimeException: OUTPUT:
Catchable fatal error: Argument 3 passed to Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Controller\TraceableControllerResolver::__construct() must be an instance of Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Debug\Stopwatch, instance of Symfony\Bundle\FrameworkBundle\Controller\ControllerNameParser given, called in /tmp/2.1.0-DEV/StandardFormLogin/cache/securitybundletest/appSecuritybundletestDebugProjectContainer.php on line 94 and defined in /home/vagrant/builds/kriswallsmith/symfony/src/Symfony/Bundle/FrameworkBundle/Controller/TraceableControllerResolver.php on line 37
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pablodip at 2012-01-10T14:18:45Z
As you don't need forms to use the csrf provider, how about putting its service without the form prefix? It could even make sense to put the CsrfProvider as a component since you can use it standalone and in more cases than only forms. It would be a small component though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-01-10T17:54:14Z
I think it would be more clear to generate the token in the controller. Doing so in the template will spread the CSRF intention across template and controller. So I don't think this extension is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-01-10T17:58:14Z
@pablodip I'm open to the idea of a Csrf component. This would be a good place for some nonce classes as well.
@Tobion I disagree. One use case is for a list of users, each with a delete form. Iterating over the users in the controller and generating a token for each, just to iterate over them again in the view is a waste and adds complexity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-01-10T18:05:14Z
I see. But I don't understand why the intention needs to be different for each user to delete. Usually the intention is the same for each form type. I thought this is enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-01-10T18:06:13Z
Yes, a static intention would suffice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-01-10T18:07:08Z
Then your use case is not valid anymore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-01-10T18:12:25Z
I would suggest to make a cookbook article out of it about how to create a simple form without the form component.
And include such things as validating the result using the validator component and checking the CSRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-01-10T21:32:50Z
This helper makes it easier to use CSRF protection without a form and we should make it as easy as possible. Spreading the intention across controller and template is not concerning to me. Either way, a cookbook entry is a great idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-01-10T21:47:12Z
Well, it's just one line more without this helper. So I disagree it makes it really easier when you know how to use the CsrfProvider which is a pre-condition anyway since you must still validate its correctness by hand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-01-13T13:24:15Z
Another use case is when rendering a page with a bunch of simple buttons with different intentions: delete user, delete comment, follow, unfollow... Creating all of these in the controller just leads to spaghetti.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jwage at 2012-01-17T21:55:53Z
👍 lots of use cases for something like this @OpenSky
* 2.0:
Updated Serbian translation.
fixed CS
[Locale][Testing] Fixed breaking tests if 'intl' extension is not installed (#3139)
[Bridge] [Twig] fixed typo in a comment of the Twig FormExtension extension.
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
This is cleanup after enabling empty form names, now form with empty name
will not render the default `id="form"` container attribute.
Developers can extend/override this behaviour by standard form theming methods.
