This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DependencyInjection] Remove the "id" attribute of "callable"
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no <!-- don't forget updating src/**/CHANGELOG.md files -->
| BC breaks? | ?
| Deprecations? | no <!-- don't forget updating UPGRADE-*.md files -->
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | <!-- #-prefixed issue number(s), if any -->
| License | MIT
| Doc PR |
It seems like this attribute was added by mistake as it's used nowhere.
It should be removed but I don't think it's worth adding a bc layer.
Commits
-------
19547a2639 [DependencyInjection] Remove the "id" attribute of "callable"
This PR was squashed before being merged into the 3.3-dev branch (closes#21937).
Discussion
----------
[DependencyInjection] Handle void return types in closure-proxy
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | N/A
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | N/A
I recently got an error when registering an event listener that specifies a `void` return type. Dumping the container generates a closure proxy that always returns a value, which then conflicts with the return type hint.
E.G the following code is generated (some class names removed for readability)
```
$instance->addListener('kernel.view', /** @closure-proxy ... */ function (...\GetResponseForControllerResultEvent $event): void {
return ${($_ = isset($this->services[listener']) ? $this->services['listener'] : $this->get('listener')) && false ?: '_'}->onKernelView($event);
}, 128);
```
This then causes the error `A void function must not return a value in ...`
So void return types should be handled by removing the `return` inside the closure
Commits
-------
a5c5ad1 [DependencyInjection] Handle void return types in closure-proxy
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI] Allow extensions to create ServiceLocator as services
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | no
| New feature? | yes
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | -
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | -
https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/21770/files?w=1
With this PR, DI extensions are able to create "service locator" services.
They are easily created as such:
```php
$container->register('my_service_locator', ServiceLocator::class)
->addArgument(array(
'exposed_id' => new ServiceClosureArgument(new Reference('internal_id')),
))
```
I already need this in two different PRs to come.
Commits
-------
1d9663326e [DI] Allow creating ServiceLocator-based services in extensions
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI][Router][DX] Invalidate routing cache when container parameters changed
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | yes
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | #21426
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | N/A
Supersedes #21443 but only for master.
Indeed, this implementation uses a new feature: a `ContainerParametersResource` which compares cached containers parameters (collected at some point, here by the `Router`) with current ones in the container.
On the contrary of the previous PR targeting 2.7, this will only invalidate routing cache when parameters actually used in the routes changed and will avoid always rebuilding the routing cache when the container is rebuilt, just to catch the edge case of someone modifying a parameter.
Commits
-------
fad4d9e2ef [DI][Router][DX] Invalidate routing cache when container parameters changed
This PR was squashed before being merged into the 3.3-dev branch (closes#21763).
Discussion
----------
[DI] Replace wildcard-based methods autowiring by `@required` annotation
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | no
| New feature? | yes
| BC breaks? | no (affects things that are only on master)
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | -
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | -
While playing a bit with new features in master around DI configuration, several people around me got bitten by wildcard-based autowiring. The typical example is adding `autowire: [set*]` in `_defaults`: use that on `resource: ../src/Command/` PSR4-based loading and boom, `setApplication` and `setHelperSet` will now be wrongly called. You could tell me "of course, don't to that" - but being bitten so early on a master-only feature makes me really unconfident that this will be easy enough for people after the release.
If wildcard-based autowiring is removed, then I don't see anymore the need for allowing arrays as in `autowire: [setFoo,getBar]`. Moreover, this array syntax has a core DX issue: it's a dead end as far as the learning curve is concerned. You learn it, then when becoming a more advanced dev, someone teaches you that you'd better use another syntax: explicit wiring.
And in fact, we don't need it at all, because something else already exists: just declare a method call, but don't define its arguments. If `autowire: true` is set, then the AutowiringPass already fills in the holes. There is only one tweak required to make this work: don't autowire optional arguments for method calls - or that'd be a BC break. To my PoV that's even better: this makes autowiring fit a "do the minimum to make it work" strategy. A really good one to me.
But there is still an issue: wildcard-based autowiring fits a need. Namely, it allows one to define a convention (eg. `'set*'`), and have all such methods that follow the convention be autowired. To me, this looks like doing it reverse (the DI config should adapt to the code, not reverse). So, to fill this need, let the declaration be in the source: just use an annotation!
This PR adds support for the `@required` annotation, borrowed from the Spring framework:
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/spring/spring_required_annotation.htm
Using the annotation is totally optional of course. If you do, *and if autowiring is on*, then it'll be autowired. If you don't, nothing changes: do manual wiring.
Even when not using autowiring, the annotation is still a nice hint for the consumer of your classes: it tells the reader that this method needs to be called for correct instantiation - thus lowering one drawback of setter injection (discoverability).
The implementation of the annotation parsing is done using a few regexp (no dep on any complex parser) - and works with inheritance, by leveraging the `@inheritdoc` tag (the default behavior being to *not* inherit anything from parent methods).
All in all, looking at the diff stats, it makes everything simpler. Good sign, isn't it?
Commits
-------
f286fcc25f [DI] Replace wildcard-based methods autowiring by `@required` annotation
9081699980 Revert "minor #21315 [DI][FrameworkBundle] Show autowired methods in descriptors (ogizanagi)"
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
Fix DI test
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Tests pass? | yes
Should fix appveyor/travis builds
Commits
-------
8740e44086 Fix DI test
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DependencyInjection] make the service container builder register its own self referencing definition
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | ~
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | ~
Commits
-------
9c97496b5f [DependencyInjection] make the service container builder register the definition of its related service container service (and aliases) in order to make compiler passes be able to reference the special service_container service.
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI] Simplify AutowirePass and other master-only cleanups
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | -
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | -
A few minor cleanups and fixes, and an overall simplification of AutowirePass.
Commits
-------
34e5cc7698 [DI] Simplify AutowirePass and other master-only cleanups
* 3.2:
[SecurityBundle] only pass relevant user provider
[Intl] Make tests pass after the ICU data update
[Intl] Update ICU data to 58.2
do not register the test listener twice
[DependencyInjection] removed dead code.
[Yaml] Stop replacing NULLs when merging
[WebServerBundle] fixed html attribute escape
* 2.8:
[SecurityBundle] only pass relevant user provider
[Intl] Make tests pass after the ICU data update
[Intl] Update ICU data to 58.2
do not register the test listener twice
[DependencyInjection] removed dead code.
[Yaml] Stop replacing NULLs when merging
[WebServerBundle] fixed html attribute escape
* 2.7:
[SecurityBundle] only pass relevant user provider
[Intl] Make tests pass after the ICU data update
[Intl] Update ICU data to 58.2
[DependencyInjection] removed dead code.
[Yaml] Stop replacing NULLs when merging
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI] Always consider abstract getters as autowiring candidates
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | no
| New feature? | yes (a missing part of getter autowiring really)
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | -
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | -
When a definition is set to be autowired with no method explicitly configured, we already wire the constructor.
We should also autowire abstract getters - with the same reasoning that makes us autowire the constructor: without concrete getters, the class is unusable. This just makes it usable again.
Commits
-------
8f246bde1d [DI] Always consider abstract getters as autowiring candidates
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI] Fix ordering of tags inheritance
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | -
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | -
Tag inheritance should have predictable ordering, from child to parents.
This PR also adds tests for ResolveDefinitionInheritancePass (heavily inspired by ResolveDefinitionTemplatePass).
Commits
-------
18e7681fc5 [DI] Fix ordering of tags inheritance
This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch.
Discussion
----------
[DI] Remove experimental status from service-locator argument type
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch? | master
| Bug fix? | no
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/21625#issuecomment-282483374, https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/21625#discussion_r102232221, #21710
| License | MIT
The `service-locator` argument type is not controversial to me. We know its scope, nothing really surprising, just a map of services to be lazily loaded like `iterator` is (which is not experimental) but keyed.
About its api, it's just PSR-11 restricted to objects, nothing that can't be changed safely in the future.
As stated in https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/21625#issuecomment-282483374, it proven its usefulness already. I think what we were looking for by flagging it experimental is just to see it in action, we've 3 opened PRs for that (#21625, #21690, #21730).
This allows introducing deprecations for making use of the feature in the core, thus unlocks #21625 and #21690.
Commits
-------
46dc47af11 [DI] Remove experimental status from service-locator argument type
