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
Commits
-------
246c885 [Form] Fixed: Default value of 'error_bubbling' is now determined by the 'single_control' option
d3bb4d0 [Form] Renamed option 'primitive' to 'single_control'
167e64f [Form] Fixed: Field attributes are not rendered in the label anymore. Label attributes are now passed in "label_attr"
68018a1 [Form] Dropped useless test that is guaranteed by OptionsParser tests and that needs to be adapted very often
649752c [Form] Fixed: CSRF token was not displayed on empty complex forms
c623fcf [Form] Fixed: CSRF protection did not run if token was missing
eb75ab1 [Form] Fixed results of the FieldType+FormType merge.
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed errors introduced in the FieldType+FormType merge
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3994, #4000, #2294, #4118
Todo: -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-22T15:39:20Z
`primitive` is a pretty abstract option name. It depends on the person what he considers primitive. Maybe more explicit naming or better documentation what it means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-22T15:47:29Z
Better suggestions?
The distinction here is between primitive and complex forms, where primitive forms are such forms that can be represented by a single HTML tag. This obviously needs to be documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-22T15:49:45Z
Maybe `single_widget` or something like that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T13:09:43Z
@Tobion @bschussek would `elementary` be better than `primitive` ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T13:17:04Z
and `compound \ composite` better than `complex` ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T14:08:33Z
@vicb I fail to see how elementary/compound is easier to understand than primitive/complex. Maybe single_widget, but what's the opposite of this case? multi_widget?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T14:15:09Z
Actually I am fine with anything... as long as it is documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T14:22:31Z
Still I think that this unveals a more profound naming problem. How do we (also in the documentation) name forms with children (formerly "forms") and forms without children (formerly "fields")?
Should we refer to them as
* forms and fields?
* complex and primitive forms?
* ...
We must first answer this question before we can find an intuitive option name. If the documentation always switches between different terminologies, neither will it be understandable nor will this option be easy to remember.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-04-23T15:10:32Z
> Still I think that this unveals a more profound naming problem. How do we (also in the documentation) name forms with children (formerly "forms") and forms without children (formerly "fields")?
To make it clear, I would rather say forms that **can have** children and forms that **can not have** children (i.e. Empty collections have no children but they can have and this is reason why you have to introduce those options, right ? - that could be a good example for the doc).
It will probably be better to refer to "complex" / "primitive" forms in the doc (and use the "form" / "field" terms to explain them).
Note: I think @Tobion concern is that "primitive" / "complex" could be pejorative terms (this is why I have proposed "elementary" / "compound").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-23T16:00:54Z
1. primitive/complex is subjective (and could be pejorative too)
2. elementary/compound is more explicit so probably better than primitive/complex
3. I dislike this option in general. Does it make sense to change this option from a user perspective? I guess it's always the same as long as the widget structure stays the same. So it should be resolved at a higher level dynamically from the widget structure and not exposed to any configuration.
4. In documentation I would use the terms forms and fields. Because all people with HTML knowledge will understand that fields cannot have sub-fields whereas forms can. But since this distinction is not findable in code, it should be mentioned that all these are implemented as a form hierarchy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mvrhov at 2012-04-23T16:02:00Z
how about simple and complex?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-23T16:06:33Z
@Tobion It does not make sense to change this option from the user perspective, still the overloading type has to propagate to FormType whether it is a form or a field, so that the default behaviour is correct.
A second option how to implement this is to add a method `isField` to FormTypeInterface that can be overloaded and receives the options. I don't really like to introduce new methods here unless absolutely required.
What about renaming the option "primitive" to "is_field"? The blocks in the template would then be named "form_widget_field" and "form_widget_form".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by tristanbes at 2012-04-25T14:01:06Z
Oh, I should've seen this before, i thought I was doing something wrong. (empty collections gets an input field bug)
Please big :UP: on this. When will it be merged ? @bschussek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-25T15:30:28Z
+1 for "is_field" and "form_widget_field" but I would rather use "form_widget_compound" instead of "form_widget_form" which is quite strange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-26T16:34:04Z
@Tobion "simple" and "compound" then?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-26T16:49:58Z
no "field" and "compound"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-26T17:17:02Z
I don't like "field" for a simple reason: Consider the "date" type. We are typically speaking of the "date" field there. But technically, the "date" field is a compound field. So?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-26T21:17:37Z
I don't understand the open question. You proposed "is_field" and "form_widget_field" yourself. So calling the template block "form_widget_field" is a comprehensible consequence of "is_field". I wouldn't call the date type with multiple inputs a field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by tristanbes at 2012-04-26T21:52:39Z
We should take a decision cause right here i got all my forms that are broken because of the empty collection rendering as input field :-).
I guess we are many in that situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-27T08:28:16Z
I renamed "primitive" to "single_control" now to match with the HTML specification which names all input elements (input, select etc.) "controls". The opposite is now "compound".
Meanwhile, I added a fix for #4118.
@fabpot This is ready for merge now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-27T10:22:49Z
Hm, I know naming things is hard and sometimes not really important. But since users need to know which block to override, it is essential to make it clear. I think there is still one issue.
The block is named `form_widget_single_control` in order, as you said, to abstract away if it's an input, select etc. But in fact it can only render `input` and nothing else. So this is misleading.
So you could also simply name it `form_widget_input`.
Apart from that I agree with everything.
The WebProcessor can now be registered as a kernel.request listener to
get the request instead of passing it as a constructor argument, which
was broken as the request is not yet available when the logger is
instantiated.
Commits
-------
e344609 [DependencyInjection] Fixed composer.json
1aa0786 [FrameworkBundle] Fixed composer.json
3601f61 [DoctrineBridge] Fixed composer.json
Discussion
----------
Fix composer json
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jalliot at 2012-04-22T14:22:24Z
`suggest` no longer requires a version constraint. While you're at it, maybe you could change those to more meaningful strings explaining what each optional dependency provides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by willdurand at 2012-04-22T14:24:27Z
I know, but the version is fine. It's more up to @fabpot to add description in each `suggest` entries.
Anyway, this is not the purpose of this PR. If you want to contribute on that, feel free :)
Commits
-------
01ca0ad [Propel1] Added security layer
Discussion
----------
[Propel1] Added security layer
Fixed the security layer for Propel 1.6, and Symfony2 2.1.
The PropelBundle is ready to go: https://github.com/propelorm/PropelBundle/pull/139
Unit tests are part of the PropelBundle at the moment, as it requires to setup a quick builder.
Commits
-------
6e4ed9e [Form] Fixed regression: bind(null) was not converted to an empty string anymore
fcb2227 [Form] Deprecated FieldType, which has been merged into FormType
bfa7ef2 [Form] Removed obsolete exceptions
2a49449 [Form] Simplified CSRF mechanism and removed "csrf" type
Discussion
----------
[Form] Merged FieldType into FormType
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3878
Todo: update the documentation on theming
This PR is a preparatory PR for #3879. See also #3878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by juliendidier at 2012-04-13T14:25:19Z
What's the benefit ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by henrikbjorn at 2012-04-13T14:26:40Z
why `input_widget` ? and not just `widget`
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Burgov at 2012-04-13T14:27:49Z
@juliendidier dynamic inheritance is now obsolete which fixes some other issues
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2012-04-13T14:37:26Z
What about __not__ breaking API so *badly* and leaving `FieldType` which will be simple like (with marking as deprecated):
```php
<?php
class FieldType extends AbstractType
{
public function getParent(array $options)
{
return 'form';
}
public function getName()
{
return 'field';
}
}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-13T14:43:41Z
@stloyd That's a very good idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by mvrhov at 2012-04-13T17:41:21Z
IMHO what @stloyd proposed sounds like a good idea, but removing FieldType class, if #3903 will come into life might ensure that more forms will broke and people will check them thoroughly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by r1pp3rj4ck at 2012-04-13T18:46:08Z
@bschussek looks great, but I'm concerned about how quickly will the third-party bundles adapt to this BC break. I hope really quick, because if they don't the whole stuff will be useless :S of course it's not your problem to solve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-13T18:50:32Z
@r1pp3rj4ck there is already another BC break requiring to update custom types for Symfony master. So third party bundles already have to do some work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by r1pp3rj4ck at 2012-04-13T18:59:37Z
@stof which one? I've looked into @bschussek 's RFC about these [foo].bar stuff, but it's not yet implemented. Are you refering to this or another one I've missed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-13T19:04:06Z
@r1pp3rj4ck the change regarding default options
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by r1pp3rj4ck at 2012-04-13T19:06:10Z
@stof oh, I forgot that one. Weird thing is that I've already changed my default options today and still forgetting these stuff :D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-14T08:58:29Z
I restored and deprecated FieldType now. I'd appreciate further reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2012-04-14T09:02:32Z
Maybe we should try to avoid this BC in templates ? What do you think about similar move like with `FieldType` ? (hold old, but inside just render new)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-14T09:07:22Z
@stloyd You mean for those cases where people explicitely render the block "field_*"? We can do that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2012-04-14T09:09:45Z
@bschussek Yes I mean this case =) Sorry for not being explicit, I need some coffee I think =)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-17T14:45:35Z
I added the field_* blocks again for BC. Could someone please review again? Otherwise this can be merged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Burgov at 2012-04-17T15:11:16Z
@bschussek I'm not sure what has changed to cause this, but if I try out your branch on our forms, if I leave the value of an input empty, eventually the reverseTransform method receives a null value, rather than a '' (empty string) value, as on the current symfony master.
DateTimeToLocalizedStringTransformer, for example, will throw an Exception if the value is not a string
```php
if (!is_string($value)) {
throw new UnexpectedTypeException($value, 'string');
}
```
Other than that, all forms render just the same as they do on symfony master
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-17T15:30:29Z
@Burgov Fixed.
Commits
-------
5208bbe [Validator] Fixed typo, updated CHANGELOG and UPGRADE
dc059ab [Validator] Added default validate() implementation to ConstraintValidator for BC
6336d93 [Validator] Renamed ConstraintValidatorInterface::isValid() to validate() because of the lack of a return value
46f0393 [Validator] Removed return value from ConstraintValidatorInterface::isValid()
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Renamed ConstraintValidatorInterface::isValid() to validate() and removed return value
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: **YES**
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: update the documentation
Before I begin, this PR is up for discussion.
I removed the return value of ConstraintValidator::isValid() because it wasn't used anymore within the framework. Removing it also means a simplification for userland implementations. Already now the validation component only depended on violation errors being present for deciding whether the validation was considered failed or not.
Because the name `isValid` does not make a lot of sense without a return value, I changed it to `validate`. Note that this affects an interface (ConstraintValidatorInterface) previously marked with `@api` by us!
What do you think about this change?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-09T17:51:38Z
@bschussek IIRC, the Validator component was part of the components that are not considered as stable for 2.0 (there is 4 of them IIRC, including Config, Security and Form) so changing the interface should not be an issue here
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lsmith77 at 2012-02-09T17:54:55Z
No it was .. form wasn't:
http://symfony.com/doc/2.0/book/stable_api.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by rdohms at 2012-02-10T13:23:32Z
I fail to see the value of the BC in this case.
Just because the framework does not use given functionality anymore is not reason to drop it, since all of this was clearly proposed as a "component" to be used in other projects. Other implementations of validator in other projects might actually depend on this.
Is it possible to just add a new value and have both functionalities available?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-10T13:25:12Z
@rdohms the point is that the return value is confusing. Someone may return ``false`` by thinking it will mark the field as invalid (which is implied by the name ``isValid``) whereas it is not the case at all
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-02-10T13:30:13Z
Exactly. UniqueEntityValidator for example always returned `true` and nobody ever noticed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by beberlei at 2012-02-10T13:53:03Z
@bschussek but its not a bug, setting the execution context failure is enough. returning false would lead to a second error message being evicted. This is the weird problem of the API imho
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-02-10T13:54:49Z
@beberlei This has already been fixed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-10T13:59:59Z
@beberlei in the master branch, errors are not duplicated anymore as the return value is simply ignored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-02-10T14:29:03Z
I'm +1. If people are concerned about this strong BC break we could maybe add a fallback for the majority.
Most people propably have extended the ConstraintValidator and not used the interface directly. So we can change the Interface and at the same time provide a default proxy method in ConstraintValidator for validate. I.e.
public function validate($value, Constraint $constraint)
{
$this->isValid($value, $constraint);
}
Thus all people who have extended ConstraintValidator won't notice a BC break.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hades200082 at 2012-02-10T16:10:31Z
Could you not have both validate and isValid as separate methods with distinct purposes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-10T16:55:12Z
@hades200082 which distinct purposes ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hades200082 at 2012-02-10T17:02:57Z
One should actually validate. The other should return whether it is valid or not as a bool.
Even if isValid calls validate to determine this surely they are distinct purposes? doing it this way would not require a break to BC but the existing components in the framework could be switched to use validate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-02-10T17:10:50Z
@hades200082 Validators are stateless. They don't "remember" whether they validated successfully or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hades200082 at 2012-02-10T17:13:25Z
Maybe they should? Would save revalidating every time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-10T17:16:10Z
@hades200082 how could they be stateless ? you can use the same instance to validate several values. For instance, the UniqueEntityValidator is a service and so will be reused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-02-11T23:40:09Z
I would really like that we do not break BC in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-11T23:59:02Z
@fabpot there is also a BC break in the previous changes: the return value has no meaning at all now (it is not even considered by the GraphWalker.
Most 2.0 validator will continue working because of the new implementation of setMessage but I can provide the 2 broken cases:
```php
<?php
/**
* This validator always set the message, even when it is valid to keep things simple.
* This works fine in 2.0.x (as the return value is what makes the decision) but will
* add a violation in 2.1 (setMessage adds the violation to keep things working for
* cases setting the message only for invalid values, like the core used to do).
*/
public function isValid($value, Constraint $constraint)
{
$this->setMessage($constraint->message);
return true;
}
/**
* This validator never set the message, failing with an empty message.
* This works fine in 2.0.x (as the return value is what makes the decision) but will
* not add the violation in 2.1.
*/
public function isValid($value, Constraint $constraint)
{
return false;
}
```
The second one is clearly an edge case as it would absolutely not be user-friendly but the first one makes totally sense when using the 2.0.x API (with a boolean expression using the value of course)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-02-12T00:11:19Z
I agree with you; I should probably have refused to merge the previous PR. And I think we need to reconsider this change. If not, why are we even bothering tagging stuff with the @api tag?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-02-12T10:15:55Z
@stof I disagree with you. Setting an error message but not letting the validation fail is not how the API is supposed to work. Also the opposite was not meant to work, as it results in empty error messages. The third example is that a validator *had* to return true if it called `addViolation` directly. These cases show that the previous implementation was clearly buggy and needed to be fixed.
This PR is only a consequence that cleans the API up.
@fabpot IMHO validator was too young and not tried enough to be marked as stable. But as we can't change this anymore, I think the decision we have to make is
* BC/reliance on `@api` marks vs.
* API usability (also considering the coming LTR)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-02-12T10:18:12Z
BTW @Tobion's suggestion could definitely make a transition easier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-02-15T10:26:10Z
@bschussek +1 for @Tobion's suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Brouznouf at 2012-02-15T16:06:12Z
Could be nice to comment function as deprecated and/or trigger a E_USER_DEPRECATED error when using this method to prevent user calling this method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-15T16:09:37Z
trigger E_USER_DEPRECATED would be wrong as the kernel set the error reporting to ``-1`` and registers an error handler tuning all reported errors to exception in debug mode, so it would be a BC break.
Commenting the function as deprecated in indeed possible
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by rdohms at 2012-02-29T11:15:01Z
Went back to working on validators and it really makes me disagree with these changes a little more. Let me explain.
In the isValid method, i like to work with return early checks, so straight up i check some stuff and return early either true/false.
From the frameworks perspective true/false does not make a difference, but from a reader's perspective it adds a lot of value:
if ($object->getId() === null) {
return true;
}
versus
if ($object->getId() === null) {
return;
}
having the return true make it clear that in this case the object is valid for anyone who is reading my validator. i think this is a good practice to push forward.
Anyway, my 2 cents on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-04T00:05:09Z
@fabpot what do you think about this ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-05T16:37:38Z
@rdohms: Still, how do you want to deal with the fact that the return value is ignored anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by rdohms at 2012-04-06T06:51:07Z
@bschussek Nobody has to know? I would keep it as it is, i have noticed that returning false without any error messages does not get me the expected results, so it seems there is no harm in keeping the parctice of true/false even if it is misleading.
Other then that.. i would alter the code to self create a error message if false is returned, thus making true/false still work, but i'm guessing that's not what your vision says, even if i find it les readable and understandable. So yeah, just my opinioin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-06T07:02:53Z
@rdohms: Your opinion is appreciated. Self-creation of error messages is what we did before, unfortunately it's very hacky then to suppress the self-creation if you want to return false and add (potentially more than one) error messages yourself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-17T14:58:07Z
I added @Tobion's suggestion now. Can you please review again? Otherwise this is ready for merge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tobion at 2012-04-17T15:05:16Z
Statement in changelog and upgrade is missing, or?
Commits
-------
8329087 [Form] Moved calculation of ChoiceType options to closures
5adec19 [Form] Fixed typos
cb87ccb [Form] Failing test for empty_data option BC break
b733045 [Form] Fixed option support in Form component
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed option support in Form component
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3354, #3512, #3685, #3694
Todo: -
This PR also introduces a new helper `DefaultOptions` for solving option graphs. It accepts default options to be defined on various layers of your class hierarchy. These options can then be merged with the options passed by the user. This is called *resolving*.
The important feature of this utility is that it lets you define *lazy options*. Lazy options are specified using closures that are evaluated when resolving and thus have access to the resolved values of other (potentially lazy) options. The class detects cyclic option dependencies and fails with an exception in this case.
For more information, check the inline documentation of the `DefaultOptions` class and the UPGRADE file.
@fabpot: Might this be worth a separate component? (in total the utility consists of five classes with two associated tests)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by beberlei at 2012-04-05T08:54:10Z
"The important feature of this utility is that it lets you define lazy options. Lazy options are specified using closures"
What about options that are closures? are those differentiated?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-05T08:57:35Z
@beberlei Yes. Closures for lazy options receive a Symfony\Component\Form\Options instance as first argument. All other closures are interpreted as normal values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-05T11:09:49Z
I'm wondering if these classes should go in the Config component. My issue with it is that it would add a required dependency to the Config component and that the Config component mixes many different things in it already (the loader part, the resource part, the definition part...)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by sstok at 2012-04-06T13:36:36Z
Sharing the Options class would be great, and its more then one class so why not give it its own Component folder?
Filesystem is just one class, and that has its own folder.
Great job on the class bschussek 👏
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-10T12:32:34Z
@fabpot Any input?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-10T13:54:13Z
@fabpot Apart from the decision about the final location of DefaultOptions et al., could you merge this soon? This would make my work a bit easier since this one is a blocker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-04-10T18:08:18Z
@bschussek: Can you rebase on master? I will merge afterwards. Thanks.
Commits
-------
f9a486e [Validator] Added support for pluralization of the SizeLengthValidator
c0715f1 [FrameworkBundle], [TwigBundle] added support for form error message pluralization
7a6376e [Form] added support for error message pluralization
345981f [Validator] added support for plural messages
Discussion
----------
[Validator] Added support for plural error messages
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Todo: create translations for en and update others (FrameworkBundle)
[](http://travis-ci.org/hason/symfony)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011-05-14T20:41:01Z
@bschussek: What's your opinion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-09-04T13:14:29Z
@hason could you rebase your branch on top of master and update the PR ?
You also need to change the messages in the constraint that uses the pluralization to a pluralized format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-10-16T18:06:22Z
@hason ping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-11-11T14:58:19Z
@hason ping again
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011-12-12T20:39:10Z
@hason ping again. Can you update your PR ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2011-12-12T21:29:14Z
@stof I hope that I will update PR this week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-01-15T19:07:32Z
Looks good to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by canni at 2012-02-02T17:28:54Z
@hason can you update this PR and squash commits, it conflicts with current master
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2012-02-09T07:21:41Z
@stof, @canni Rebased.
What is the best solution for the translation of messages?
1. Change messages in the classes and all xliff files?
2. Keep messages in the classes and change all xliff files?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-02-09T08:19:41Z
The constraints contain the en message so you will need to modify them to update the message
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by hason at 2012-02-09T08:55:55Z
I prefer second option. The Validator component should be decoupled from the Translation component. The constraints contain the en message which is also the key for Translation component. We should create validators.en.xlf in the FrameworkBundle for en message. I think that this is better solution. What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-04T02:22:02Z
@hason Please rebase your branch. It conflicts with master because of the move of the tests
@fabpot ping
Commits
-------
65aa387 [Form] Fixed index generation in EntityChoiceList if ID is not an integer
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fixed index generation in EntityChoiceList if ID is not an integer
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3635
Todo: -
Commits
-------
a430f3d [#3446] [Form] Fix getChoicesForValues of EntityChoiceList on empty values
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fix reverseTransform on multiple entity form type
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: #3446, #3727
Todo: -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-03T23:05:55Z
@bschussek ping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-03T23:06:45Z
This is an alternate implementation for #3727
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by chmielot at 2012-04-04T13:47:27Z
OK, this is another possibility to fix this issue with working tests. What do you think about this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by chmielot at 2012-04-04T13:51:27Z
OK, just done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-04T13:51:39Z
@beberlei @bschussek ping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-06T18:50:37Z
@fabpot 👍
