Commits
-------
f1c4b8b [Doctrine Bridge] Added a parameter ignoreNull on Unique entity to allow a nullable value on field. Added Test
Discussion
----------
[Doctrine Bridge] Added parameter ignoreNull to accept a nullable value on field
In my last project, i use this syntax to test unicity on 2 fields, but it fail because the validator stop if value is null. I dropped the test on validator and my unicity work fine.
```
@UniqueEntity(fields={"username", "deletedAt"})
```
It's possible to add this PR on Bridge.
Thanks
Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T08:14:19Z
This is wrong. RDBMS allow several null values in a unique column and this change will break it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by henrikbjorn at 2012-07-23T08:17:08Z
@stof seems weird indeed it would return if any of the values are null. Makes sense to do a query where the field `IS NULL` or whatever the find method does.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T08:18:50Z
@henrikbjorn if you do a query with IS NULL, the validator would force to have only 1 entity with a null field whereas it is not the behavior of the DB-level constraint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by henrikbjorn at 2012-07-23T08:20:41Z
In this case i suspect that he wants to achieve a `WHERE username = "henrikbjorn" AND deletedAt IS NULL` which would be valid right? Currently it just returns if any of the fields are null and the validation is never done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-23T08:27:24Z
I suggest to make this configurable as the handling of NULL values in UNIQUE columns [differs between SQL implementations](http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?22,53591,53591#msg-53591).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T08:52:53Z
@stof What the correct solution to test my unicity with deletedAt == null ?
I use this definition: @ORM\Column(name="deleted_at", type="datetime", nullable=true)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:28:44Z
In my local repository, i added a new parameter "$authorizedNullField" on UniqueEntity.php and tested this on UniqueEntityValidator.php:
Code: https://gist.github.com/4122efbe569e3c2c95c0
What about that ?
Thanks for your help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:45:30Z
yep, this would be good (except for the naming which seems weird)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:46:44Z
No problem to change this. I don't find a good name for this ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:47:57Z
what about ``allowMultipleNull`` (defaulting to ``true`` for BC) ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:51:30Z
Why multiple ? This option is for one or many. what about `allowNullable` ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:52:44Z
@Garfield-fr the current behavior allows having multiple null values without failing to the unique constraint
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T20:56:07Z
ok. I make `allowMultipleNull`.
It's ok with that: https://gist.github.com/cae8d43780c45a5011ed
Thanks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-23T20:58:12Z
What about `uniqueNull` (`false` by default)? `ignoreNull` (`true` by default)? I find `allowMultipleNull` a bit cumbersome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T20:58:26Z
no it is not. You have an issue in the validator. You have an extra negation.
Please update your PR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-07-23T21:01:59Z
@stof `ignoreNull` is ok for you ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-23T21:10:24Z
yes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-08-05T07:48:03Z
Is it mergeable now? Is yes, @Garfield-fr Can you squash your commits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-08-05T08:43:23Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/2039523) (merged 19ae3cf9 into c20c1d18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-05T12:09:02Z
@Garfield-fr when squashing the commits, you need to force the push as you are rewriting the history. You should not have merged with your remote branch
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-08-05T12:10:15Z
What's the right solution for resolve this ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-08-05T12:11:09Z
@Garfield-fr reset your local branch to the squashed commit and force the push
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Garfield-fr at 2012-08-05T12:14:09Z
@stof Thanks for your help
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-08-05T12:19:06Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/2040210) (merged f1c4b8b4 into 20d2e5a1).
Commits
-------
fb002d8 [Form] Fixed variable passing from outer to inner blocks of the same FormView instance
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed variable passing from outer to inner blocks of the same FormView instance
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #5029
Todo: -
This PR fixes two bugs.
The first bug is described in #5029. The second parameter to the "form_label" function in Twig, if given, always overwrote whatever label was defined previously.
```
{# null would overwrite whatever is currently set #}
form_label(form, null, { ... })
```
The second bug affected passing variables from outer to inner blocks. In the following example, "label_attr" would not be forwarded to the "form_label" function.
```
form_row(form, { "label_attr": { "class": "my_class" }})
```
Both bugs are fixed now.
Commits
-------
24b764e [Form] Fixed issues mentioned in the PR
9216816 [Form] Turned Twig filters into tests
310f985 [Form] Added a layer of 2.0 BC methods to FormView and updated UPGRADE and CHANGELOG
5984b18 [Form] Precalculated the closure for deciding whether a choice is selected (PHP +30ms, Twig +30ms)
5dc3c39 [Form] Moved the access to templating helpers out of the choice loop for performance reasons (PHP +100ms)
0ef9acb [Form] Moved the method isChoiceSelected() to the ChoiceView class (PHP +150ms)
8b72766 [Form] Tweaked the generation of option tags for performance (PHP +200ms, Twig +50ms)
400c95b [Form] Replace methods in ChoiceView by public properties (PHP +100ms, Twig +400ms)
d072f35 [Form] The properties of FormView are now accessed directly in order to increase performance (PHP +200ms, Twig +150ms)
Discussion
----------
[Form] Made FormView and ChoiceView properties public for performance reasons
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: **yes**
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
This PR changes the access to properties of `FormView` and `ChoiceView` objects from getters to direct property accesses. On [my example form](http://advancedform.gpserver.dk/app_dev.php/taxclasses/1) this improves rendering performance for **300ms** with PHP templates and **550ms** with Twig on my local machine.
Unfortunately, this breaks BC both with 2.0 and with the current master in Form Types and PHP templates. Twig templates are not affected by this change.
2.0:
```
$formView->set('my_var', 'foobar');
$formView->get('my_var');
$formView->getChild('childName');
$formView['childName'];
```
master:
```
$formView->setVar('my_var', 'foobar');
$formView->getVar('my_var');
$formView->get('childName');
$formView['childName'];
```
this PR:
```
$formView->vars['my_var'] = 'foobar';
$formView->vars['my_var'];
$formView->children['childName'];
$formView['childName'];
```
Should we add methods to keep BC with 2.0?
The second part of this PR contains improvements to the rendering of choice fields. These gain another **~500ms** for PHP templates and **80ms** for Twig. These improvements are BC, unless you overwrote the block "choice_widget_options" in your form themes which then needs to be adapted.
**Update:**
The PR now includes a BC layer for 2.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-21T11:37:41Z
@bschussek couldn't we keep the getters and setters for BC even if the rendering accesses the public properties directly ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-21T11:52:33Z
@stof A BC layer for 2.0 is now included. People who upgraded to master already unfortunately need to adapt their code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by sstok at 2012-07-21T12:40:57Z
👍
Commits
-------
1474aa5 [Form] Fixed consideration of Twig's template inheritance and added another performance-improving check
b4ec7f5 Fixed my rubbish English
d11f8b5 [Form] Fixed passing of variables in the FormRenderer
629093e [Form] Extracted common parts of FormHelper and FormExtension into separate classes
216c539 [Form] Implemented a more intelligent caching strategy in FormHelper (PHP +100ms, Twig +100ms)
Discussion
----------
[Form] Merged FormHelper and FormExtension and implemented a better caching strategy
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
This PR extracts common parts of `FormHelper` and `FormExtension` into implementations of the new interfaces `FormRendererInterface` and `FormRendererEngineInterface`. The implemented `AbstractRendererEngine` features a more intelligent caching strategy than the one used before. When this strategy was implemented directly in `FormHelper`, the performance of [this specific, heavy form](http://advancedform.gpserver.dk/app_dev.php/taxclasses/1) could be improved from **2.5** to **2.25 seconds** on my machine for PHP templates.
Due to the abstraction and delegation, the performance gain is not that big anymore, but we still have a performance gain of about **0.1 seconds** for both PHP and Twig in the above example. The second, big improvement of this PR is maintainability - the differences between PHP and Twig templates are now contained in relatively small classes - and extendability (it is very easy now to support different template engines).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-14T13:47:19Z
should a similar refactoring be done for the [Twig rendering](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Bridge/Twig/Extension/FormExtension.php) ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-14T13:49:25Z
Yes. I would like to merge the common parts of Twig's FormExtension and PHP's FormHelper into an abstract class. Before that I need to have a [working, heavy Twig Form](https://twitter.com/webmozart/status/224135287377371138) in order to measure whether I don't actually decrease the performance with Twig. Can you help me there?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-07-16T21:48:24Z
Would it make sense to create a 'renderer' folder in the form component and move related classes there ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-16T22:06:58Z
@vicb It makes sense to keep the Twig renderer in the brisge. This is what the bridge is about. Moving the Twig class to the component would not be consistent. And the PHP renderer is already in the component (but it could make sense to move the helper from FrameworkBundle to the TemplatingExtension of the Form component though)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-07-16T22:16:50Z
@stof I was only referring to the classes located in the Component/Form folder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-07-16T22:27:27Z
Overall I don't really know what to think of this PR. PHP and Twig use a different way to support blocks:
- PHP has one block per file,
- Twig could have many blocks per templates.
I am not sure if this PR is optimal for Twig and improves maintainability ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-16T22:46:11Z
@vicb it avoids duplicating the whole rendering logic for each engine (there is at least a third one in [SmartyBundle](https://github.com/noiselabs/SmartyBundle/blob/master/Extension/FormExtension.php) btw)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-17T07:16:42Z
@vicb I don't think a renderer subfolder makes sense. The interfaces belong to the main namespace, and then the subfolder would only contain two classes.
Considering maintainability for Twig, I think that this PR in fact increases it. TwigExtension before always had to check the whole type hierarchy, while now the code in AbstractRendererEngine makes sure that this process is speeded up.
Before:
```
load _some_entity_field_label:
- check _some_entity_field_label
- check entity_label
- check choice_label
- check form_label
load _some_other_entity_field_label
- check _some_other_entity_field_label
- check entity_label
- check choice_label
- check form_label
a.s.o.
```
After:
```
load _some_entity_field_label:
- check _some_entity_field_label
- check entity_label (hits the cache if entity_label was checked before)
- check choice_label (hits the cache if choice_label was checked before)
- check form_label
load _some_other_entity_field_label
- check _some_other_entity_field_label
- check entity_label (now definitely hits the cache)
a.s.o.
```
Since many fields share the same ancestors in the inheritance tree, this definitely improves performance.
As can also be deducted here, custom block names such as `_some_entity_field_label` are now a major drawback. There is nothing we can cache for them, so they need to be checked for every individual block that we load. Removing this feature surprisingly gains no performance for Twig (I need to investigate why at some point), but it speeds up rendering for **250ms** using the PHP engine on [this example form](advancedform.gpserver.dk/app_dev.php/taxclasses/1), dropping the rendering time from 1.25 to 1 sec on my local machine. I'm not sure what we should do here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-17T07:21:31Z
@bschussek could it be possible to have an implementation checking the custom block and another one skipping it ? This way, the user could disable this feature when he does not need it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-17T07:38:34Z
@stof It would be possible to add a switch to `FormRenderer` that controls whether custom blocks are checked or not.
If this switch is disabled by default, we break BC. If this switch is enabled by default, it will be pretty useless. People will start designing away for custom blocks, and once they want to improve performance, they can't turn off the switch anymore because it would require too many changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-17T08:08:38Z
@fabpot what do you think about it ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-07-17T08:41:43Z
Another option that just came to mind is to remove inheritance checks for anything but _widget and _row. I.e., if we render `entity_widget`, check
```
_id_widget
entity_widget
choice_widget
form_widget
```
But if we render `entity_label`, only check
```
_id_label
form_label
```
This improves PHP Templating for **170ms** and Twig for **20ms**. We gain another **150ms** for PHP Templating and **~15ms** for Twig if we also restrict custom fields (_id_widget) to the _widget and _row suffixes (it's really hard to tweak the renderer for Twig.. I think a lot of its performance bottlenecks lie in Twig itself).
Do you have any data on how often blocks other than _widget and _row are customized for specific types/IDs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-17T09:47:38Z
Well, I think most of the time other blocks are not even customized based on the type :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-07-17T14:32:39Z
From my experience rendering the form components individually is easier and more flexible than customizing by ID or type.
But there are still use cases for customizing like library-like bundles (e.g. Bootstrap).
Commits
-------
8f99be3 [DoctrineBridge] Fixed the type guesser for doctrine 2.3
Discussion
----------
[DoctrineBridge] Fixed the type guesser for doctrine 2.3
Doctrine 2.3 now uses the drivers moved to Common, so the exception was not catched anymore and was breaking the guessing when a non-entity was used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by craue at 2012-07-16T14:54:30Z
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ddeboer at 2012-07-17T20:07:57Z
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-17T20:17:01Z
@fabpot please merge this as 2.1 is currently broken when you rely on the form guessers for unmapped classes
Commits
-------
33f29ed [Form] '@group benchmark' for form performance tests
Discussion
----------
[Form] '@group benchmark' for form performance tests
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: [](http://travis-ci.org/asm89/symfony)
License of the code: MIT
I think a PR or note about this has been rejected before, but since build statuses on PRs sometimes seem to fail if travis is busy I think moving the form performance tests to `@group benchmark` should be reconsidered.
Edit: even master is currently failing on this
Commits
-------
cd7835d [Form] Cached the form type hierarchy in order to improve performance
2ca753b [Form] Fixed choice list hashing in DoctrineType
2bf4d6c [Form] Fixed FormFactory not to set "data" option if not explicitely given
7149d26 [Form] Removed invalid PHPDoc text
Discussion
----------
[Form] WIP Improved performance of form building
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: **Update the Silex extension**
This PR is work in progress and up for discussion. It increases the performance of FormFactory::createForm() on a specific, heavy-weight form from **0.848** to **0.580** seconds.
Before, the FormFactory had to traverse the hierarchy and calculate the default options of each FormType everytime a form was created of that type.
Now, FormTypes are wrapped within instances of a new class `ResolvedFormType`, which caches the parent type, the type's extensions and its default options.
The updated responsibilities: `FormFactory` is a registry and proxy for `ResolvedFormType` objects, `FormType` specifies how a form can be built on a specific layer of the type hierarchy (e.g. "form", or "date", etc.) and `ResolvedFormType` *does the actual building* across all layers of the hierarchy (by delegating to the parent type, which delegates to its parent type etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-07-12T18:25:40Z
Maybe ResolvedFormType
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jmather at 2012-07-13T02:56:38Z
I really like ResolvedFormType. That's the naming method I took for my tag parser that handes the same conceptual issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by axelarge at 2012-07-13T05:25:00Z
ResolvedFormType sounds very clear.
This change is great and I desperately hope to see more of this kind
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Baachi at 2012-07-13T06:41:26Z
Yes `ResolvedFormType` sounds good :) 👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-13T07:11:33Z
I like `ResolvedFormType` as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by henrikbjorn at 2012-07-13T07:46:48Z
👍 `ResolvedFormType` :shipit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-13T18:01:51Z
This looks good to me
By default, the UniqueEntityValidator maps the violation on the first
field of the UniqueEntity constraint. The new option allows to control
this behavior if a better mapping is suited.
Commits
-------
c1e4166 moved create of default form label to view layer
Discussion
----------
move create of default form label to view layer
A small optimization if you provide custom labels in the view layer (i.e. `{{ form_label(form.name, 'Your name') }}`
```
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: ~
Todo: ~
License of the code: MIT
Documentation PR: ~
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-24T14:45:17Z
This pull request [fails](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1694310) (merged 37f0b774 into 0d4b02e4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-24T15:03:44Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1694418) (merged c1e4166e into 0d4b02e4).
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
-------
a2b3d3c added cache service definition
Discussion
----------
[Doctrine Bridge] Added a method to load a cache definition
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
Following this discussion (https://github.com/doctrine/DoctrineBundle/pull/62), this will let DoctrineBundle, MongodbBundle and CouchdbBundle share the same code for cache definitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by dlsniper at 2012-04-30T06:56:49Z
+1 for this PR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-30T06:57:58Z
👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-04-30T15:41:05Z
Can you add a note abou this change in the CHANGELOG?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-30T15:46:48Z
does it really need to be in the changelog ? End-users don't know about this at all. The only guys affected by this change are the maintainers of the different Doctrine bundles as they can remove some code now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-04-30T16:41:21Z
@stof: right
@bamarni: Can you squash your commits?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bamarni at 2012-04-30T17:03:38Z
@fabpot : done
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by dlsniper at 2012-04-30T17:22:07Z
@bamarni can you also do a patch for the docs after this gets merged so that people know about this change and know how to use it?
Thank you!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bamarni at 2012-04-30T17:29:05Z
@dlsniper : no problem ;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-04-30T18:29:03Z
ping @beberlei
