This PR was merged into the master branch.
Discussion
----------
unify constructor initialization style throughout symfony
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Bug fix? | yes
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | -
| License | MIT
| Doc PR | n/a
In almost all classes symfony uses property initialization when the value is static. Constructor initialization is only used for things that actually have logic, like passed parameters or dynamic values. IMHO it makes the code much more readable because property definition, phpdoc and default value is in one place. Also one can easily see what the constructor implements for logic like overridden default value of a parent class. Otherwise the real deal is just hidden behind 10 property initializations. One more advantage is that it requires less code. As you can see, the code was almost cut in half (210 additions and 395 deletions).
I unified it accordingly across symfony. Sometimes it was [not even consistent within one class](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Component/Config/Definition/BaseNode.php#L32). At the same time I recognized some errors like missing parent constructor call, or undefined properties or private properties that are not even used.
I then realized that a few Kernel tests were not passing because they were deeply implementation specific like modifying booted flag with a custom `KernelForTest->setIsBooted();`. I improved and refactored the kernel tests in the __second commit__.
__Third commit__ unifies short ternary operator, e.g. `$foo ?: new Foo()`. __Forth commit__ unifies missing parentheses, e.g. `new Foo()`.
Commits
-------
077a089 unify missing parentheses
2888594 unify short ternary operator
2a9daff [HttpKernel] better written kernel tests
111ac18 unify constructor initialization style throughout symfony
As explained in #6775, this has been done for the following reasons:
1. It's also Request::getHost()
2. The term hostname has been obsoleted in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-D.2 and uses the host only
3. hostname in the RFC was defined as the registered domain name, but we
probably also want to match IP-Adresses with the pattern which is the
host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name for.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
9fc7def added the UPGRADE file for Symfony 3.0
e84cad2 [Routing] updated CHANGELOG
65eca8a [Routing] added new schemes and methods options to the annotation loader
5082994 [Routing] renamed pattern to path
b357caf [Routing] renamed hostname pattern to just hostname
e803f46 made schemes and methods available in XmlFileLoader
d374e70 made schemes and methods available in YamlFileLoader
2834e7e added scheme and method setter in RouteCollection
10183de make scheme and method requirements first-class citizen in Route
Discussion
----------
Routing options
| Q | A
| ------------- | ---
| Bug fix? | no
| New feature? | no
| BC breaks? | no
| Deprecations? | yes
| Tests pass? | yes
| Fixed tickets | #5989, #5990, #6049
| License | MIT
In #5989, it has unanimously been decided to renamed `hostname_pattern` to `hostname` and `pattern` to `path`. That makes a lot of sense and I would like to do the renaming now as `hostname_pattern` is new in Symfony 2.2, so I'd like to avoid breaking BC just after the release. As we are modifying the route options, I've also included changes introduced by @Tobion in #6049 which were discussed in #5990.
As everything is BC, I think it's wise to include that in 2.2. What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2013-01-14T18:25:53Z
I agree it should be done in 2.2. Thanks for working on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-14T23:11:12Z
@fabpot "Everything is BC" until it breaks BC in 3.0, that's why I'd like to see [deprecations in PR summary](https://github.com/symfony/symfony-docs/pull/2116) what do you think ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-14T23:16:40Z
it would also be great to update the CHANGELOG with deprecations (it could also help people answering your question)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2013-01-15T07:07:03Z
@vicb: I've just updated the CHANGELOG and created the UPGRADE file for 3.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-15T07:15:32Z
@fabpot thanks.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
51223c0 added upgrade instructions
50e6259 adjusted tests
98f3ca8 [Routing] removed tree structure from RouteCollection
Discussion
----------
[Routing] removed tree structure from RouteCollection
BC break: yes (see below)
Deprecations: RouteCollection::getParent(); RouteCollection::getRoot()
tests pass: yes
The reason for this is so quite simple. The RouteCollection has been designed as a tree structure, but it cannot at all be used as one. There is no getter for a sub-collection at all. So you cannot access a sub-collection after you added it to the tree with `addCollection(new RouteCollection())`. In contrast to the form component, e.g. `$form->get('child')->get('grandchild')`.
So you can see the RouteCollection cannot be used as a tree and it should not, as the same can be achieved with a flat array!
Using a flat array removes all the need for recursive traversal and makes the code much faster, much lighter, less memory (big problem in CMS with many routes) and less error-prone.
BC break: there is only a BC break if somebody used the PHP API for defining RouteCollection and also added a Route to a collection after it has been added to another collection.
So
```
$rootCollection = new RouteCollection();
$subCollection = new RouteCollection();
$rootCollection->addCollection($subCollection);
$subCollection->add('foo', new Route('/foo'));
```
must be updated to the following (otherwise the 'foo' Route is not imported to the rootCollection)
```
$rootCollection = new RouteCollection();
$subCollection = new RouteCollection();
$subCollection->add('foo', new Route('/foo'));
$rootCollection->addCollection($subCollection);
```
Also one must call addCollection from the bottom to the top. So the correct sequence is the following (and not the reverse)
```
$childCollection->->addCollection($grandchildCollection);
$rootCollection->addCollection($childCollection);
```
Remeber, this is only needed when using PHP for defining routes and calling methods in a special order. There is no change required when using XML or YAML for definitions. Also, I'm pretty sure that neither the CMF, nor Drupal routing, nor Silex is relying on the tree stuff. So they should also still work.
cc @fabpot @crell @dbu
One more thing: RouteCollection wasn't an appropriate name for a tree anyway as a collection of routes (that it now is) is definitely not a tree.
Yet another point: The XML declaration of routes uses the `<import>` element, which is excatly what the new implementation of addCollection without the need of a tree does. So this is now also more analogous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Koc at 2012-11-26T17:34:15Z
What benefit of this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-11-26T17:56:53Z
@Koc Why did you not simply wait for the description? ^^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by dbu at 2012-11-26T18:33:09Z
i love PR that remove more code than they add whithout removing functionality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Crell at 2012-11-26T18:49:52Z
There's an issue somewhere in Drupal where we're trying to use addCollection() as a shorthand for iterating over one collection and calling add() on the other for each item. We can't do that, however, because the subcollections are not flattened properly when reading back and our current dumper can't cope with that. So this change would not harm Drupal at all, and would mean I don't have fix a bug in our dumper. :-) I cannot speak for any other projects, of course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-11-27T19:06:34Z
Ok, this is ready.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
4b86765 [FrameworkBundle] recursively resolve container parameter placeholders for arrays in router _defaults
Discussion
----------
[2.2] [FrameworkBundle] avoid trying to resolve container placeholders on arrays on router _defaults
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: ~
Todo: ~
License of the code: MIT
Documentation PR: ~
Permits to pass arrays in route `_defaults`.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-20T13:07:36Z
This seems weird. An array could contain parameters in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by docteurklein at 2012-07-20T13:17:00Z
@stof An object too then, no ? Why accepting objects but not arrays ? Would you propose to recursively resolve array values ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-20T13:31:06Z
@docteurklein Resolving array values recursively would be consistent with the way the DIC parameters are resolved. I don't really see how you would resolve objects (and btw, it is pretty much an edge case as you cannot really put an object in your routes if you define them in your YAML or XML config files or with annotations)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by docteurklein at 2012-07-20T13:36:43Z
@stof I agree. I can manage recursive array resolving if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-23T13:58:07Z
Can you squash your commits before I merge? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by docteurklein at 2012-07-23T14:39:17Z
@fabpot done.
This allows as to define default like this
foo:
pattern: /{_locale}/login
defaults:
_controller: my_login_controller:loginAction
_locale: %session.default_locale%
Here are the new simplified rules:
* Required cache warmers are *always* executed when the Kernel boots for the first time;
* Optional cache warmers are *only* executed from the CLI via cache:warmup
These new rules means that all the configuration settings for the cache
warmers have been removed. So, if you want the best performance, remember to
warmup the cache when going to production.
This also fixed quite a few bugs.
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.
This reverts commit f53080860a.
Revert "[Router] config fixes"
This reverts commit 51beecc6f2.
Revert "moved duplicated files to a new Config component"
This reverts commit a8ec9b27f0.
