This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
6b1652e [PropertyAccess] Property path, small refactoring, read/writeProperty to read/write Property/Index.
1bae7b2 [PropertyAccess] Extracted PropertyAccess component out of Form
Discussion
----------
[PropertyAccess] Extracted PropertyAccess component out of Form
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: -
TODO: adapt DoctrineBundle/PropelBundle to pass the "property_accessor" service to EntityType/ModelType
Usage:
```php
$accessor = PropertyAccess::getPropertyAccessor();
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->setBar('value')
$accessor->setValue($object, 'foo.bar', 'value');
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->getBar()
$accessor->getValue($object, 'foo.bar');
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()['bar']
$accessor->getValue($object, 'foo[bar]');
// equivalent to $array['foo']->setBar('value')
$accessor->setValue($array, '[foo].bar', 'value');
// equivalent to $array['foo']['bar']
$accessor->getValue($array, '[foo][bar]');
```
Later on, once we have generation and caching of class-specific accessors, configuration will be something like this (consistent with the Form and Validator component):
```php
$accessor = PropertyAccess::getPropertyAccessorBuilder()
->setCacheDirectory(__DIR__ . '/cache')
->setCacheLifeTime(86400)
->enableMagicGetSet()
->enableMagicCall()
->getPropertyAccessor();
```
or
```php
$accessor = PropertyAccess::getPropertyAccessorBuilder()
->setCache($cache)
->getPropertyAccessor();
```
etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Burgov at 2013-01-07T08:48:15Z
+1. I use this feature outside of the Form context a lot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-07T08:49:34Z
The classes in the Form component should be kept for BC (and deprecated) for people using the feature
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T10:02:19Z
YES YES YES 👍. Sorry for my enthusiasm, but I already copy pasted the PropertyPath class to some of my libraries to avoid linking to the whole Form component. I thus will be glad to officially use this component into my libraries via composer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by norzechowicz at 2013-01-07T10:17:39Z
Same as @michelsalib to avoid linking full Form component I was using copied parts of code. Can't wait to use this component in my lib. 👍
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T10:43:41Z
I split away `getValue()` and `setValue()` from `PropertyPath` into a new class `ReflectionGraph`. The component is also named ReflectionGraph now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T10:47:10Z
I am not found of the name. What do you intend to do in the component more than what PropertyPath does ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T10:58:59Z
@michelsalib A `PropertyPath` is simply a string like `foo.bar[baz]`. `getValue()` and `setValue()` interpret this path. There may be different interpretations for the same path, so these methods were split into a new class.
I chose the name `ReflectionGraph` because the functionality is very similar to `ReflectionProperty`.
```php
$reflProperty = new ReflectionProperty('Vendor/Class', 'property');
$reflProperty->setValue($object, 'foo');
$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph();
$reflGraph->setValue($object, 'property.path', 'foo');
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T11:00:42Z
What about naming it `Reflection`, maybe sometime we will want to add more reflection tools for classes, interfaces... ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T11:02:32Z
@michelsalib I doubt that we will do that. PHP's implementation is sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-07T11:03:57Z
> Backwards compatibility break: no
Really ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by michelsalib at 2013-01-07T11:05:07Z
Well, that is just a suggestion. If I am the only one to oppose, I won't complain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T11:09:08Z
> Really ?
@vicb Would you please refrain from such meanginless comments in the future? I'm getting a bit tired of them. If you think that BC is broken somewhere, tell me where so that I can fix it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-07T11:09:43Z
@vicb There is no BC break as he kept deprecated classes for BC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by norzechowicz at 2013-01-07T11:13:12Z
@bschussek what do you think about some kind of factory for Reflection? This will prevent creating new Reflection objects each time you want to access properties values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-07T11:18:47Z
@bschussek my point is that my comment is no more meaningless than closing #6453 because it will break BC.We could also keep BC by extending the classes in the new ns but in both cases BC will ultimately be broken (when the legacy classes are removed)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-07T12:23:45Z
@bschussek @stof I think that modifying the constructor signatures of `EntityChoiceList`, `FormType` are BC breaks (this is not an exhaustive list)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-07T12:35:13Z
@vicb You are right. I added corresponding entries to the CHANGELOG and adapted the above description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T13:39:13Z
@bschussek looking at this PR, I was wondering if an alternate syntax would make sense:
```php
<?php
$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph($object);
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->setBar('value')
$reflGraph['foo.bar'] = 'value';
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->getBar()
$reflGraph['foo.bar'];
```
_Sorry for the off topic_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T13:49:46Z
The advantage of using such a `ReflectionGraph` factory is that it might be easier to return specialized reflection graphs, ie optimized instances (that would be cached).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Toflar at 2013-01-08T14:49:54Z
I was also puzzled by the fact that there will be many `ReflectionGraph` instances although they don't have to. I'm with @vicb and I'd also vote for using the constructor to set the subject you're working on. Otherwise you'll repeat yourself over and over again by passing the subject - say `$object` - to `getValue()` or `setValue()`. If however you don't like the constructor thing then why do we have to have an instance of `ReflectionGraph` rather than just go for static methods and use `ReflectionGraph::getValue()` and `ReflectionGraph::setValue()`?
In my opinion there are a few methods that could be static anyway (especially some private ones) :)
But probably I misunderstood something as I'm just about to discover the SF components and don't have any experience working with them (so basically I just read the PR because of @bschussek's tweet :D)
Couldn't come up with any intuitive name for the component though :(
Generally when we talk about "getting" and "setting" values we call those things "mutators"...so `GraphMutator` might be more intuitive than the word `Reflection` :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Taluu at 2013-01-08T14:57:42Z
I like the last proposition made by @vicb (implementing `ArrayAccess` on `ReflectionGraph` - or whatever name will be chosen (`PathMutator` for example :D), and also specify which object should be worked on in the constructor rather than in each method).
Would this also be used in the `Validator` component ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-08T15:16:12Z
@Toflar A static ``ReflectionGraph::getValue()`` means you have a coupling to the implementation (as with any static call). The current implementation allows you to replace it with your own implementation as long as you implement the interface as it follows the DI pattern (as done in other places in Symfony).
@vicb The issue with ``$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph($object);`` is that you cannot inject the ReflectionGraph anymore, as you need a new one each time. This would mean adding a ``ReflectionGraphFactory`` to be injected (and which could then be replaced by a factory using code generation). Using the constructor directly would not allow using a replacement based on code generation later. So the resulting code would more likely be
```php
$reflGraph = new ReflectionGraph();
$mutator = $reflGraph->getMutator($object);
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->setBar('value')
$mutator['foo.bar'] = 'value';
// equivalent to $object->getFoo()->getBar()
$mutator['foo.bar'];
```
Btw, writing this, I find the naming Mutator suggested by @Taluu good when it concerns the setter, but quite weird when getting the value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Taluu at 2013-01-08T15:21:00Z
I was not the one to suggest though, it was @everzet. But then something like `PathAccessor`, as it is both a mutator and a getter ? I also like @stof suggestion, still in the idea of avoiding to have to put the object as an argument and also allowing to use an `ArrayAccess` interface..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T15:21:54Z
@stof your remark makes sense.
What about `Accessor`, the benefit being that it might well be the name of a coming PHP feature: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/propertygetsetsyntax-v1.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by everzet at 2013-01-08T15:27:02Z
```php
$manager = new PropertyManager(new PropertyPath());
$num = $manager->getValue($object, 'foo.num');
$manager->setValue($object, 'foo.num', $num + 1);
$objectManager = new ObjectPropertyManager($object[, $manager]);
$num = $objectManager->getValue('foo.num');
$objectManager->setValue('foo.num', $num + 1);
$objectManager['foo.num'] += 1;
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-08T15:28:01Z
It might be me, but I don't like `ArrayAccess` to be misused for features like that. If I access a key in an array access structure, I expect it to be something like a collection, an associative array or a key value store. This class is neither.
Putting that aside, an accessor for a specific object might make sense, but I'm not sure about that yet.
```php
$reflObject->setValue('foo.bar', 'value');
$reflObject->getValue('foo.bar');
```
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-08T15:28:52Z
@vicb I would vote for PathAccessor then, as we are not doing simple accessor but accessors through a path in an object graph.
In my snippet above, we would then have a ReflectionGraph instance and a PathAccessor instance (``$mutator``).
Btw, I would also keep the methods ``setValue`` and ``getValue``. I find it more clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2013-01-08T15:32:07Z
@stof But then we're rather left with the question of ReflectionGraph **vs.** PathAccessor. I don't think that the tiny interface difference (one global, one object-based) justifies the big naming difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2013-01-08T15:33:24Z
> This class is neither.
It might be `$pa['foo.bar[baz]'] = $pa['foo.bar']['baz'];` I don't know if it would help though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-08T15:35:51Z
@bschussek In my suggestion, ``ReflectionGraph`` is a factory for the PathAccessor objects. It is not accessing anymore itself (which would probably continue to cause issues to implement it with code generation). But the naming could indeed be changed to something else.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
1edf302 Fixed some translation typos
Discussion
----------
Fixed translation typos on the Security componente
Hi,
In my last PR I've introduced some translation typos on the Security component messages for the Spanish translation.
So sorry.
Christian.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
77545a2 Update src/Symfony/Component/Security/Resources/translations/security.es.xlf
Discussion
----------
Update src/Symfony/Component/Security/Resources/translations/security.es...
....xlf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mweimerskirch at 2013-01-10T17:43:38Z
Duplicate of #6684?
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
a1ef9d8 Fixed 2 typos in French translation
Discussion
----------
Fixed 2 typos in French translation
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
b92973c Fixed German translations for security component
Discussion
----------
Fixed German translations for security component
authentication != authorisation
plus a few other minor things
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
9471a1c Added Luxembourgish translation for security component
Discussion
----------
Added Luxembourgish translation for security component
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
67d7423 Remove use of deprecated HttpKernel LoggerInterface
dca4528 [HttpKernel] Extend psr/log's NullLogger class
1e5a890 [Monolog] Mark old non-PSR3 methods as deprecated
91a86f8 [HttpKernel][Monolog] Add PSR-3 support to the LoggerInterface
Discussion
----------
[HttpKernel][MonologBridge] PSR-3 support
This enables PSR-3 support and monolog 1.3+. The first commit is the main part. The rest deals with deprecation of short-hand methods (warn/err/crit/emerg) that are fully expanded in PSR-3 (warning/error/critical/emergency).
The downside of deprecating them is that for bundles it's a bit harder to support older and newer versions. If that is too much of a hassle you can drop that for now and cherry pick the first commit.
The upside is that it forces people to move towards PSR-3 compatible stuff, which means eventually we could completely drop the LoggerInterface from the framework. In any case I think the documentation should only mention the `Psr\Log\LoggerInterface` and people should start hinting against that. The change should be done in core as well I suppose.
Anyway I wanted to throw this out there as it is to get feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-09T09:15:15Z
@Seldaek I also think you should change the typehint to use the PSR LoggerInterface in all classes using the logger
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2013-01-09T09:54:55Z
OK updated according to all the feedback. I tested it in an app and it still seems to work so there shouldn't be any major issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2013-01-09T09:59:55Z
@fabpot if you merge please merge also the bundle PR, otherwise it won't be possible to update without conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by frosas at 2013-01-10T14:59:20Z
I'm trying to understand why a `composer update` of a Symfony 2.1.* resulted in a fatal error. Shouldn't a stable version don't break like this?
As @olaurendeau points, why Symfony depends 1.* instead of 1.2.*? Or why Monolog 1.3 breaks its public interface (EDIT: I'm not sure about it)? Or why isn't this PR being merged (into branch 2.1) at the same time Monolog 1.3 is released?
Please, understand I'm not looking for who to blame, it's just I want to know if this situation is unexpected or if otherwise a `composer update` on a stable branch is not as innocent as it seems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-10T15:06:51Z
@frosas it cannot be merged into 2.1 as it is a BC break. The 2.1 branch has been updated to forbid Monolog 1.3 already
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2013-01-10T15:11:58Z
@frosas you can blame me for releasing as 1.3.0 and not 2.0, but technically for monolog this isn't really a BC break, I just added an interface. The problem is due to the way it's used in symfony, it ended up as a fatal error. In any case the situation is now sorted out I think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by frosas at 2013-01-10T15:26:43Z
@stof now I see this `>=1.0,<1.3-dev` change in the 2.1 branch. Now, shouldn't a new (2.1.7) version be released for all of us not in the dev minimum-stability?
@Seldaek then do you see feasible to rely only in X.Y.* versions to avoid this kind of errors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2013-01-10T15:45:22Z
@frosas relying on X.Y.* is painful because you always need to wait until someone updates the constraint to get the new version. Of course using ~1.3 like in this PR means if I fuck up and break BC people will update to it, but that's a less likely occurrence than the alternative I think, so I would rather not use X.Y.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by frosas at 2013-01-10T15:50:50Z
@Seldaek you are right about this, but I was thinking more in changing it only for the stable versions. EDIT: I mean, how often do you need a new feature in a branch you only apply fixes to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-10T15:57:32Z
@frosas Monolog and Symfony have separate release cycles. Foorcing Symfony users to use an old version of Monolog until they update to a new version of Symfony whereas the newer Monolog is compatible is a bad idea. Thus, as Monolog keeps BC, it does not maintain bugfix releases for all older versions (just like Twig does too). So it would also forbid you to get the fixes done in newer Monolog versions.
The incompatibility between Symfony 2.1 LoggerInterface and PSR-3 (whereas they expect exactly the same behavior and signature for methods with the same name) is unfortunate and is the reason why we get some issues here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by frosas at 2013-01-10T16:21:06Z
@stof I appreciate you prefer to allow newer versions at the price of having to be constantly monitoring its changes to avoid breaks.
Another similar but safer strategy would be to stick to X.Y.* versions and upgrade to X.Y+1.* once the new version integration is tested, but I understand this is discutible in projects as close to Symfony as Monolog.
Returning to the issue, what do you say to release this 2.1.7 version? Or is it only me who is having issues here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-10T16:26:20Z
@frosas a minor release should not break BC when following smeantic versionning (Symfony warned about the fact it is not strictly followed for the first releases of 2.x). But as far as monolog is concerned, 1.3 is BC with 1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2013-01-10T16:49:55Z
@frosas sorry I didn't get you still had the problem. I tagged a 2.1.7 of monologbundle which hopefully fixes your issue.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
c6eb819 Created security.cs.xlf
Discussion
----------
[security][tranlation] Created Czech translation to Security
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
0b75f67 Security component Polish message translations
Discussion
----------
[Security] Polish message translations
Security component messages translated from English to Polish.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
c06e627 Fixed some typos
Discussion
----------
FIxed some typos in the Spainsh translation of the Security component messages
Hi,
In order to show the most clear and less _"robotic"_ messages in Spanish, I've fixed some typos and some incorrect translations in the Spanish translation file of the Security component.
Christian.
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
e84a8d0 fixed some small issues with grammar and used terminology
Discussion
----------
fixed some small issues with grammar and used terminology
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
d5825aa slovenian translations of security component added
Discussion
----------
Slovenian translations of security component added
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
d6f972b Created Slovak translation to Security
Discussion
----------
[security][tranlation] Created Slovak translation to Security
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
6ae8ca8 Update src/Symfony/Component/Security/Resources/translations/security.es.xlf
Discussion
----------
Update src/Symfony/Component/Security/Resources/translations/security.es...
....xlf
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
9b8428d [security][tranlation]Fixed spanish translation
Discussion
----------
[security][tranlation]Fixed spanish translation
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
0b5177b added italian translations
Discussion
----------
added italian translations for the security component
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by matteosister at 2013-01-10T14:22:54Z
not sure if the file should be named **security.it_IT.xlf** or **security.it.xlf**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2013-01-10T14:25:49Z
security.it.xlf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by matteosister at 2013-01-10T14:31:14Z
ok, renamed the files, and squashed the pr to a single commit!
Thanks @fabpot!