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
-------
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!
This PR was squashed before being merged into the master branch (closes#6660).
Commits
-------
45c8682 [Security][Translation]Created fr translation for Security
Discussion
----------
[Security][Translation]Created fr translation for Security
adds french translations for the security component
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
c3a6659 [Security] added Hungarian translations for exception messages
Discussion
----------
[Security] added Hungarian translations for exception messages
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
2f51961 Created de translation for Security
Discussion
----------
[Security][Translation]Created de translation for Security
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
e35998f Translated to Romanian
Discussion
----------
[Security] Translated to Romanian
Added Romanian version for Security messages.
Thanks!
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
68257d3 Enhanced the triggering of E_USER_DEPRECATED errors
Discussion
----------
Enhanced the triggering of E_USER_DEPRECATED errors
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Deprecations: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: none
- Removed useless error handlers around FormEvent as the triggering has
been fixed in it.
- Enhanced the triggering of deprecation errors for places where the BC
method provide some user logic needing to be converted to a new way.
For instance, AbstractType should trigger the error when the type extending it overwrites the deprecated methods instead of ``setDefaultOptions``, which was not the case previously.
- Enhanced the deprecation messages to mention the replacement whenever
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-10T01:23:49Z
@fabpot should I remove ``Symfony\Component\Form\Test\DeprecationErrorHandler::getFormEvent`` ? It is not used anymore in the testsuite and is not needed anymore as the constructor of FormEvent does not trigger the deprecation erronously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2013-01-10T07:24:02Z
@stof: yes, remove it then. Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2013-01-10T08:23:14Z
done
This PR was merged into the master branch.
Commits
-------
73db84f [Security] Move translations file to 'security' domain
324703a [Security] Switch to English messages as message keys
aa74769 [Security] Fix CS + unreachable code
2d7a7ba [Security] Fix `AuthenticationException` serialization
50d5724 [Security] Introduced `UsernameNotFoundException#get/setUsername`
39da27a [Security] Removed `get/setExtraInformation`, added `get/set(Token|User)`
837ae15 [Security] Add note about changed constructor to changelog
d6c57cf [FrameworkBundle] Register security exception translations
d7129b9 [Security] Fix exception constructors called in `UserChecker`
0038fbb [Security] Add initial translations for AccountStatusException childs
50e2cfc [Security] Add custom `getMessageKey` AccountStatusException childs
1147977 [Security] Fix InsufficientAuthenticationException constructor calls
79430b8 [Security] Fix AuthenticationServiceException constructor calls
42cced4 [Security] Fix AuthenticationException constructor calls
963a1d7 [Security] Add initial translations for the exceptions
ed6eed4 [Security] Add `getMessageKey` and `getMessageData` to auth exceptions
694c47c [Security] Change signature of `AuthenticationException` to match `\Exception`
Discussion
----------
[2.2][Security] AuthenticationException enhancements
Bug fix: semi
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: [](http://travis-ci.org/asm89/symfony)
Fixes the following tickets: #837
License of the code: MIT
This PR adds the functionality discussed in #837 and changes the constructor of the `AuthenticationException` to match that of `\Exception`. This PR will allow developers to show a translated (save) authentication exception message to the user. :)
*Todo:*
- Add some functional test to check that the exceptions can indeed be translated?
- Get feedback on the current English messages
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-07-15T14:04:11Z
ping @schmittjoh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-07-15T14:57:32Z
Looks good to me.
While you are at the exceptions, I think we can also get rid of the "extra information" thing and replace it by explicit getters/setters. Mostly that will mean adding set/getToken, set/getUser, set/getUsername. Bundles might add custom exceptions which have other data. This will make it a bit more useful and predictable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-07-15T15:40:45Z
@schmittjoh I removed the `get/setExtraInformation` and added the more explicit getters/setters as you suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-07-15T19:33:15Z
@fabpot Did you reschedule this for 2.2? Why? It was originally a 2.1 ticket. I think it is an important one because at the moment there is no reliable way to show users the cause of an `AuthenticationException` without the threat of exposing sensitive information. This issue has been around for a while, see the original issue this PR refers to, or for example [this TODO comment in FOSUB](https://github.com/FriendsOfSymfony/FOSUserBundle/blob/master/Controller/SecurityController.php#L37).
The PR itself is ready to merge now. My only question that remains is about whether the actual translations should be functional tested?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-07-15T19:43:19Z
We need to stop at some point. If not, we never release anything. beta3 was scheduled for today and I don't plan any other one before the first RC and I won't have time to review this PR next week. So, if you, @schmittjoh, @vicb, @stof, and a few other core devs "validate" this PR, I might consider merging it before 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-07-15T19:46:09Z
@fabpot I totally agree with your point of view. I just have been trying to pickup some security issues that were still open. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-07-15T19:50:29Z
This looks good to me
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-08-12T09:06:24Z
Since the beta period is over I assume the window was missed to get this security related PR in 2.1. If I have feedback from @fabpot I'll still try to make it mergeable asap though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-08-13T10:10:32Z
@asm89 This would indeed be considered for merging in 2.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Antek88 at 2012-10-03T10:30:46Z
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-10-04T21:27:15Z
@asm89 could you rebase this PR ? It conflicts with master
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-10-05T17:16:44Z
What's the status of this PR? @asm89 Have you taken all the feedback into account?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-10-13T17:48:48Z
@asm89 ping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-10-29T09:48:40Z
@asm89 If you don't have time, I can finish the work on this PR, but can you just tell me what's left?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-10-29T10:02:22Z
I can pick this up, but I have two outstanding questions:
- One about adding `::create()`? https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/4935#discussion_r1358297
- And what is the final verdict on the messages? https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/4935#discussion_r1165701 The initial idea was that the exception itself have an exception message which is plain english and informative for the developer. If you want to display the 'safe' user messages you have the optional dependency on the translator. There is a comparison made with the Validator component, but in my opinion that's a different case because the violations always contain the message directed at the user and have no plain english message for the developer. Apart from that the Validator component contains it's own code for replacing `{{ }}` variables in messages (duplication? not as flexible as the translator). Concluding I'd opt for: optional dependency on translator component if you want to show 'safe' user messages + message keys.
@schmittjoh Any things to add?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-10-29T10:14:09Z
Message keys sound good to me. I wouldn't add the ``create`` method for now.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Alexander <notifications@github.com>wrote:
> I can pick this up, but I have two outstanding questions:
>
> - One about adding ::create()? symfony/symfony#4935<https://github.com/symfony/symfony/issues/4935#discussion_r1358297>
> - And what is the final verdict on the messages? symfony/symfony#4935<https://github.com/symfony/symfony/issues/4935#discussion_r1165701>The initial idea was that the exception itself have an exception message
> which is plain english and informative for the developer. If you want to
> display the 'safe' user messages you have the optional dependency on the
> translator. There is a comparison made with the Validator component, but in
> my opinion that's a different case because the violations always contain
> the message directed at the user and have no plain english message for the
> developer. Apart from that the Validator component contains it's own code
> for replacing {{ }} variables in messages (duplication? not as
> flexible as the translator). Concluding I'd opt for: optional dependency on
> translator component if you want to show 'safe' user messages + message
> keys.
>
> @schmittjoh <https://github.com/schmittjoh> Any things to add?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/4935#issuecomment-9861016>.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-10-29T10:27:37Z
As I said in the discussion about the translations, I'm -1 for the message keys to be consistent with how we manage translations everywhere else in the framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-10-29T10:30:50Z
@fabpot When we changed the English translation for the validation errors in 2.1, we had to tag the commit as a BC rbeak as it was changing the source for all other translations. And if you look at the state of the files now, you will see that we are *not* using the English as source anymore in some places as some validation errors have a pluralized translation but the source has not been changed.
So I think using a key is more future-proof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-10-30T19:44:49Z
Any final decision on this? On one hand I have @stof and @schmittjoh +1 on message keys, on the other @fabpot -1. I guess it's your call @fabpot.
Edit: also @vicb seemed to be +1 on message keys earlier on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by drak at 2012-11-01T20:19:00Z
I am also -1, I agree with @fabpot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-11-12T09:38:51Z
@fabpot Can you please give a definite answer on this? I personally think @stof and @vicb have good points to do message keys, but with all these different people +1 and -1'ing the PR I'm lost on what it should actually do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-11-14T09:59:06Z
ping @fabpot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-11-26T10:01:27Z
ping @fabpot We talked about this in Berlin. Any final thoughts on the PR? :) One idea was to do message keys + opt depend on the translator component if you want to use them, or use your own implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-11-26T14:01:37Z
The conclusion is: keep using plain English.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Alexander <notifications@github.com>wrote:
> ping @fabpot <https://github.com/fabpot> We talked about this in Berlin.
> Any final thoughts on the PR? :) One idea was to do message keys + opt
> depend on the translator component if you want to use them, or use your own
> implementation.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/4935#issuecomment-10709997>.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Inori at 2012-11-26T15:00:22Z
is this final? if not, then +1 for message keys
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-11-27T22:33:47Z
@fabpot I can't understand why we keep discussing this for months as this implementation use *both* keys and plain Englis, ie using keys is optional ( if it was not it would not be an issue according to #6129)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2013-01-02T21:43:46Z
@fabpot @vicb I'll rebase this PR, fix the comments and refactor the message keys to use plain English + {{ }} syntax for the placeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2013-01-07T15:00:58Z
@fabpot If I fix this tonight, will it make the beta?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2013-01-07T15:53:00Z
yes, definitely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2013-01-07T20:13:38Z
@fabpot I switched the implementation to English messages instead of message keys and fixed the final comments + rebased. Anything you want me to do after this?
Still happy with `getMessageKey()`?
