Commits
-------
92f820a Renamed registerConstraints to loadDynamicValidatorMetadata
dd12ff8 CS fix, getConstraints renamed
09c1911 [Validator] Improved dynamic constraints
54cb6e4 [Validator] Added dynamic constraints
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Dynamic constraints
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
By now the Validator component is based on a per-class configuration of
constraints, but in some cases it might be neccessary to add new constraints
dynamically at runtime.
This pull request adds a "ConstraintProviderInterface" to the Validator component. If an object is validated that implements this interface the method "getConstraints" is used to add dynamic constraints:
class User implements ConstraintProviderInterface
{
protected $isPremium;
protected $paymentInformation;
public function getConstraints(ClassMetadata $metadata)
{
if ($this->isPremium) {
$metadata->addPropertyConstraint('paymentInformation', new NotBlank());
}
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by alexandresalome at 2012-01-15T11:20:04Z
Related to #1151
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by canni at 2012-01-16T09:22:28Z
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-16T12:32:44Z
I think this is a good addition. I think we still have a naming problem though. When constraints are loaded using a static method, the default name for the loader method is `loadValidatorMetadata`. Since the method for dynamic constraint loading is basically the same, I think the two names should be related.
Solution (1): Rename the method in your interface to `loadDynamicValidatorMetadata`. Ugly and long.
class MyClass implements ConstraintProviderInterface
{
public static loadValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
public loadDynamicValidatorMetadata(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
}
Solution (2): Rename the default method name in `StaticMethodLoader` to `registerConstraints` and adjust the docs. Breaks BC.
class MyClass implements ConstraintProviderInterface
{
public static registerConstraints(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
public registerDynamicConstraints(ClassMetadata $metadata) ...
}
@fabpot: Are we allowed to break BC here? If not, we should probably stick to (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-01-16T12:36:14Z
I would prefer to not break BC if possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by blogsh at 2012-01-16T15:25:46Z
So "loadDynamicValidatorMetadata" would be the best solution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by althaus at 2012-01-17T13:39:19Z
>So "loadDynamicValidatorMetadata" would be the best solution?
Sounds fine for me based on @bschussek's comment.
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #2779
Todo: -
Because PHP function `array_key_exists` is buggy, it works great with native
PHP `ArrayObject` instances, but hand written implementations of `ArrayAccess`
and `Traversable` objects will fail to work with `CollectionValidator`
Commits
-------
1e370d7 typo fix
93d8d44 added some more infos about Config
27efd59 added READMEs for the bridges
34fc866 cosmetic tweaks
d6af3f1 fixed README for Console
6a72b8c added basic README files for all components
Discussion
----------
added basic README files for all components and bridges
heavily based on http://fabien.potencier.org/article/49/what-is-symfony2 and the official Symfony2 documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jmikola at 2011/11/03 13:36:07 -0700
Great work. For syntax highlighting on the PHP snippets, you could add "php" after the three backticks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/03 13:41:29 -0700
done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stealth35 at 2011/11/03 13:49:31 -0700
Nice job, but you also need to add `<?php`
ex :
``` php
<?php
use Symfony\Component\DomCrawler\Crawler;
$crawler = new Crawler();
$crawler->addContent('<html><body><p>Hello World!</p></body></html>');
print $crawler->filter('body > p')->text();
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/03 13:56:57 -0700
done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ericclemmons at 2011/11/03 19:57:57 -0700
@lsmith77 Well done! This makes consumption of individual components that much easier, *especially* now that `composer.json` files have been added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/04 01:18:23 -0700
ok .. fixed the issues you mentioned @fabpot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/11 15:00:27 -0800
@fabpot anything else left? seems like an easy merge .. and imho there is considerable benefit for our efforts to spread the word about the components with this PR merged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by drak at 2011/11/11 18:54:13 -0800
You know, it might be a nice idea to put a link to the documentation for each component if there is some at symfony.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/11/12 00:59:14 -0800
i did that in some. but i might have missed a few places.
On 12.11.2011, at 03:54, Drak <reply@reply.github.com> wrote:
> You know, it might be a nice idea to put a link to the documentation for each component if there is some at symfony.com
>
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/2561#issuecomment-2715762
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by breerly at 2011/11/21 10:28:36 -0800
Pretty excited with this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by dbu at 2011/11/24 00:02:50 -0800
is there anything we can help with to make this ready to be merged?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2011/12/18 02:39:23 -0800
@fabpot: seriously .. if you are not going to deliver something "better" and don't provide a reason what is wrong with this .. then its beyond frustrating. i obviously do not claim that these README's are perfect (and certainly still no replacement for proper documentation), but I do claim that in their current form they are a radical step forward to potential users of the Symfony2 components.
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.
