Commits
-------
cd24fb8 change explode's limit parameter based on known variable content
b3cc270 minor optimalisations for explode
Discussion
----------
[FrameworkBundle][CssSelector][HttpFoundation][HttpKernel] [Security][Validator] Minor optimizations for "explode" function
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
I added limit parameter in some places, where it may be usefull. I did not check the context of what values may have been exploded. So to not break anything, I added +1 to limit parameter.
If you find out that in some places limit (or limit+1) is not important or meaningless, write a comment please and I will fix it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/12/07 06:56:49 -0800
Adding +1 just to be sure to not break anything is clearly something we won't do. What is the benefit of doing that anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/07 13:50:24 -0800
The main idea of making this PR was to notify about some places that may run faster with just adding one parameter to explode function.
If in code is someting like: ```list($a, $b) = explode(':', $s);```
Function ```explode``` will create n-items (depends on ```$s```), but we need in code only the first two items. There is no reason to let ```explode``` create more items in memory that are NEVER used in our code. The limit parameter is there for these situations, so let's use it.
I know that it is microoptimization and may look unimportant, but we are writing a framework - so people expect that code will be as fast as possible without this kind of mistakes.
As I've noticed above, I know that +1 is not ideal solution, but the fastest without debugging the code. I expect that someone (with good knowledge of that code) will look at it and write in comments if variable may contain 1 comma (dot or someting on what is doing the explode) or maybe 2 in some situations or more.
Anyway, +1 will not break anything, because same items are created as it is now, but no unnecessary item is created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/12/07 23:14:59 -0800
I'm +1 for adding the number to avoid problems but I'm -1 on the optimization side of things as it won't optimize anything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by helmer at 2011/12/08 12:46:49 -0800
*.. The main idea of making this PR was to notify about some places that **may** run faster ..*
I am also unsure the optimization is really an optimization, care to benchmark (with meaningful inputs)? As for the limit+1 thing, why would you want to +1 it? The number of ``list`` arguments should always reflect the ``limit`` parameter, no?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/08 23:11:34 -0800
@helmer please try this simple benchmark:
```
<?php
header('Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8');
define('COUNT', 10000);
$source_string = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb:cccccccccccccccccccccccc:dddddddddddddddddddddd:eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee:fffffffffffffffffffffffffff';
$start = microtime(true);
for ($i = 0; $i < COUNT; $i++) {
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string);
}
$end = microtime(true)-$start;
echo 'without limit: '.$end."\n";
$start = microtime(true);
for ($i = 0; $i < COUNT; $i++) {
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string, 2);
}
$end = microtime(true)-$start;
echo 'with limit: '.$end."\n";
```
My results are:
```
without limit: 0.057228803634644
with limit: 0.028676986694336
```
That is 50% difference (with APC enabled). Of course the result depends on the length of source string and if it's too short, the difference may be none or very very small. That's why I said, that it **may** run faster and is just a micro optimization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/08 23:18:12 -0800
@helmer And why +1? It depends on a code:
```
$source_string = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb:cccccccccccccccccccccccc';
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string, 2);
var_dump($a, $b);
```
and
```
$source_string = 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb:cccccccccccccccccccccccc';
list($a, $b) = explode(':', $source_string, 3);
var_dump($a, $b);
```
gives different results. That's why the content of the variable must be known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by helmer at 2011/12/09 00:08:28 -0800
@pulzarraider Thanks for the benchmark, seems like a gain enough. Although, we are more likely having a scenario of:
``explode(':', 'a🅱️c')`` vs ``explode(':', 'a🅱️c', 3)`` with a ``COUNT`` of 10, where the difference is not even in microseconds anymore :)
The limit addition alters the behaviour though, ie suddenly you can define a controller [logical name](http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/routing.html#controller-string-syntax) as ´´AcmeBlogBundle:Blog:show:something``, and things go downhill from there on.
All that aside, I'm +1 for setting the limit to the exact number of ``list`` parameters, but certainly not number+1, this is just too wtfy (as you said, this was a safety thing, but I reckon for this PR to be merged it needs to be +0).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by drak at 2011/12/09 08:28:58 -0800
Overall `list()` is ugly as it's not very explicit. Even though it would mean extra lines, it's better to `explode()` then explicitly assign variables:
```
$parts = explode(':', $foo);
$name = $parts[0];
$tel = $parts[1];
```
`list()` is one of those bad relics from the PHP past...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/12/11 10:07:47 -0800
@drak: why is `list` not explicit? It is in fact as explicit as the more verbose syntax you propose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by pulzarraider at 2011/12/11 13:08:50 -0800
@drak: I agree with @fabpot. In speech of benchmarks ```list``` is faster then using a helper variable.
@fabpot, @helmer I've changed explode's limit to be correct (without +1) and removed some changes from this PR, where I can't find out what the content of variable may be. Unit tests pass, so I think it's ready for merge.
Commits
-------
86f888f fix https default port check
Discussion
----------
fix https default port check
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Abhoryo at 2011/08/03 03:26:15 -0700
I think it's better to delete $httpsPort variable from the prototype and use only $httpPort variable.
public function urlRedirectAction($path, $permanent = false, $scheme = null, $httpPort = 80)
...
$port = '';
if (('http' === $scheme && 80 != $httpPort) || ('https' === $scheme && 443 != $httpPort)) {
$port = ':'.$httpPort;
}
But if this method is already used with the $httpsPort variable elsewhere, your change is ok with me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by gimler at 2011/08/03 04:52:08 -0700
You can use different ports for http and https so when you call the function $scheme = null than it use the $request->getScheme() so you must add both ports so i think it is not a good idea to merge the http and https vars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by gimler at 2011/08/03 04:53:17 -0700
damn sorry i have accidentally close the pull request ;(
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/08/03 05:13:24 -0700
I agree with @gimler. Merging them as a single parameter does not make sense here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Abhoryo at 2011/08/03 05:33:12 -0700
I've juste think it's weird to set a useless parameter ($httpPort) when you want to use the last parameter ($httpsPort).
And I don't think someone want http protocole on 433 or https on 80 ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/08/03 05:35:16 -0700
@Abhoryo what if you are using this controller in a general way, without knowing by advance if the handled request is a secure one ? You need both parameters.
If you need to change the https port by keeping the default http port, you indeed need to pass it but blame PHP: it does not support named parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Abhoryo at 2011/08/03 06:02:18 -0700
Ok, right.
This commit also fixes exception pages when Twig is not enabled as a templating engine.
Instead of just displaying the raw Twig template as before, we now fallback to the default
exception handler introduced some time ago.
Commits
-------
cdf4b6a Checked log levels
a45d3ee Reverted last commit
529381b ControllerNotFound: Changed log level from info to error. Also moved throw exception code block up, to prevent the message from beeing logged multiple times.
7c29e88 Changed log level of "Matched route ..." message from info to debug
dca09fd Changed log level of "Using Controller ..." message from info to debug
Discussion
----------
Log levels
Just wanted to ask if the log level INFO is still correct for these messages?
As there are only four log levels left (DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, ERROR), DEBUG might be the more appropriate level for these messages now.
Let me give an example: An application is logging user actions (maybe to database) in order to assure comprehensibility, e. g. "User %s deleted post %d", "User %s written a message to user %s". These are not warnings of course, so the only suitable log level is INFO.
But they will be thrown together with these very common (at least two per request?) "Using controller..." and "Matched route..." messages when choosing INFO as log level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/05/24 07:13:18 -0700
Agreed, this stuff is framework debug information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/05/24 08:53:24 -0700
Why do you want to change these two specific ones? The framework uses the INFO level at other places too. Is it a good idea to say that the framework only logs with DEBUG?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/05/24 09:12:53 -0700
Doctrine logs at the INFO level too and I think it is useful to keep it as INFO. Being able to see the queries without having all DEBUG messages of the event dispatcher and security components is useful IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/05/25 02:30:24 -0700
Yeah, that's true, maybe we just need to reintroduce (again, meh:) NOTICE between INFO and WARNING.
@kaiwa Of course the other way could be that you just add your DB handler to the app logger stack. That could be done in a onCoreRequest listener or such, basically you'd have to call `->pushHandler($yourDBHandler)` on the `monolog.logger.app` service. That way your messages will flow to it, but it won't receive noise from the framework stuff since those log on monolog.logger.request and other log channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/05/25 02:48:26 -0700
@Seldaek: I don't think we need another level. We just need to come up with a standard rules about the usage of each level. Adapted from log4j:
* ERROR: Other runtime errors or unexpected conditions.
* WARN: Use of deprecated APIs, poor use of API, 'almost' errors, other runtime that are undesirable or unexpected, but not necessarily "wrong" (unable to write to the profiler DB, ).
* INFO: Interesting runtime events (security infos like the fact the user is logged-in or not, SQL logs, ...).
* DEBUG: Detailed information on the flow through the system (route match, security flow infos like the fact that a token was found or that remember-me cookie is found, ...).
What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/05/25 02:53:38 -0700
+1 for this standard (also this PR can be merged then), but we should review code for other "wrong" log levels usage (if everyone accept this standard)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/05/25 02:55:07 -0700
I won't merge this PR before all occurrences of the logger calls have been reviewed carefully and changed to the right level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kaiwa at 2011/05/25 02:58:44 -0700
@fabpot: Just noticed these two occurring for every request in my log file. You are right, there are other places where this changes must be applied if we will change the log level.
@stof: Hmm, i see. It is not possible to set the logger separately for each bundle, is it? That maybe would solve the problem. If somebody is interested in seeing the queries, he could set the log handler level to DEBUG for doctrine bundle, but still use INFO for the framwork itself. Plus he could even define a different output file or a completely different handler.
I'm not sure if something like that is possible already (?) or realizable at all... just came into my mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/05/25 03:01:07 -0700
Just FYI, from Monolog\Logger (which has CRITICAL and ALERT):
* Debug messages
const DEBUG = 100;
* Messages you usually don't want to see
const INFO = 200;
* Exceptional occurences that are not errors
* This is typically the logging level you want to use
const WARNING = 300;
* Errors
const ERROR = 400;
* Critical conditions (component unavailable, etc.)
const CRITICAL = 500;
* Action must be taken immediately (entire service down)
* Should trigger alert by sms, email, etc.
const ALERT = 550;
The values kind of match http error codes too, 4xx are expected errors that are not really important (404s etc) and 5xx are server errors that you'd better fix ASAP. I'm ok with the descriptions, but I think alert and critical should be included too. I'll probably update Monolog docblocks to match whatever ends up in the docs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/05/25 03:03:21 -0700
@kaiwa you can do a lot, but not from the default monolog configuration entry, I'm not sure if we can really make that fully configurable without having a giant config mess. Please refer to my [comment above](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/1073#issuecomment-1234316) to see how you could solve it. Maybe @fabpot has an idea how to make this more usable though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/05/25 03:19:43 -0700
@Seldaek the issue is that the different logging channels are only know in the compiler pass, not in the DI extension. So changing the level in the extension is really hard IMO.
Thus, the handlers are shared between the different logging channels (needed to open the log file only once for instance, or to send a single mail instead of one per channel) and the level is handled in the handlers, not the logger.
I'm +1 for the standard, by adding the distinction between 400 and 500 status calls using ERROR and CRITICAL (which is already the case in the code).
@kaiwa do you have time to review the calls to the logger between DEBUG and INFO or do you prefer I do it ? For instance, the Security component currently logs all message at DEBUG level and some of them should be INFO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kaiwa at 2011/05/25 04:31:04 -0700
@stof ok i'll do that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kaiwa at 2011/05/25 12:22:51 -0700
Need some help :) I came across `ControllerNameParser::handleControllerNotFoundException()` which leads to redundant log messages currently:
>[2011-05-25 20:53:16] request.INFO: Unable to find controller "AppBaseBundle:Blog" - class "App\BaseBundle\Controller\BlogController" does not exist.
>[2011-05-25 20:53:16] request.ERROR: InvalidArgumentException: Unable to find controller "AppBaseBundle:Blog" - class "App\BaseBundle\Controller\BlogController" does not exist. (uncaught exception) at /home/ruth/symfony3/src/Symfony/Bundle/FrameworkBundle/Controller/ControllerNameParser.php line 87
Is it necessary to call `$this->logger->info($log);` if the InvalidArgumentException will be logged anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/05/25 12:39:22 -0700
Well, the issue is that the ControllerNameParser logs messages and then uses them to throw an exception. I guess the logging call should be removed as it is redundant with the one of the ExceptionListener. @fabpot thoughts ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kaiwa at 2011/05/27 11:39:25 -0700
I checked all debug, info and log calls. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the levels, so it would be great if someone reviews @cdf4b6a. @stof, maybe you want to take a look?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kaiwa at 2011/05/31 12:52:07 -0700
@stof, thanks for your comments. I added some replies above, please let me know your suggestions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/05/31 14:04:22 -0700
@kaiwa As I said before, all the security logging calls should be DEBUG (most of them) or INFO (the one syaing that authentication succeeded for instance), but not WARN or ERROR as the exception don't go outside the firewall.
This adds to convience methods, for two separate reasons:
* Controller::getDoctrine() - this will allow method completion on the Registry class to work in IDEs, is slightly shorter, and should feel very "concrete" to beginners
* Registry::getRepository() - the repository is a very convenient thing to need - this allows it to be fetched much more succintly
Overall Before:
$product = $this->get('doctrine')
->getEntityManager()
->getRepository('AcmeDemoBundle:Product')
->find($id);
Overall After (with IDE method auto-completion for `getRepository`):
$product = $this->getDoctrine()
->getRepository('AcmeDemoBundle:Product')
->find($id);
The _scheme requirement can be used to force routes to always match one given scheme
and to always be generated with the given scheme.
So, if _scheme is set to https, URL generation will force an absolute URL if the
current scheme is http. And if you request the URL with http, you will be redirected
to the https URL.
The rationale is that this is a very common task and we can't expect non-advanced users to have to remember what the fully-qualified
class name of the Exception is in order to use it.
Quote from HTTP (bis) spec (Part 2 - 5.1.1):
The Reason Phrase exists for the
sole purpose of providing a textual description associated with the
numeric status code, out of deference to earlier Internet application
protocols that were more frequently used with interactive text
clients. A client SHOULD ignore the content of the Reason Phrase.
It's a detail, but it hits usability. For normal bundles (those without children), we're able to actually print the namespace where we're looking for the Controller. For bundles with children, this would be a very verbose message, but we can at least print all of the bundles that we looked inside of.
Some question whether or not the base Controller should be included at all. I think it absolutely must be included because it's important for beginners and for rapid development of smaller features/applications (and rapid development is good for beginners).
So, assuming that we *do* like the base Controller, we should really use it to its fullest potential - making the lives of developers as easy as possible.
The Response is not available in the DIC anymore.
When you need to create a response, create an instance of
Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Response instead.
As a side effect, the Controller::createResponse() and Controller::redirect()
methods have been removed and can easily be replaced as follows:
return $this->createResponse('content', 200, array('foo' => 'bar'));
return new Response('content', 200, array('foo' => 'bar'));
return $this->redirect($url);
return Response::createRedirect($url);
