Commits
-------
fbd2a0e make suggested changes for default value
c507b1d update variable name to match the option name
b53f000 add the ability to set the form prototype name in CollectionType. this will aid in handling nested collections in forms
Discussion
----------
[Form] Collection
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: [#1324](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/issues/1324)
add the ability to set the form prototype name in CollectionType. this will aid in handling nested collections in forms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by IamPersistent at 2011/10/17 02:54:45 -0700
Actually, as an afterthought, I looked over at the issues and this is basically https://github.com/symfony/symfony/issues/1324 just adding an extra option instead of using the prototype option.
@stloyd, my thought was handling the case where someone was "clever" enough to set the 'prototype_name' option to "". But I could be over-thinking :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/10/17 03:00:23 -0700
@IamPersistent IMO if someone is setting this option, he should be aware of that problem, also AFAIK `$$$$` could be *valid* name too ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by IamPersistent at 2011/10/17 03:02:14 -0700
@stloyd, I'm fine with changing it, I'll wait to see what everyone else has to say about this request vs using the prototype option for the name in 1324
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by IamPersistent at 2011/10/17 03:28:49 -0700
@stloyd, @stof, I made the suggested changes, now I suppose, let the debate begin over PR1324 vs this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/10/17 03:47:53 -0700
IMO this PR makes changing prototype name in more clean way, so I would prefer this one over that proposed in #1324.
Commits
-------
95049ef [Form] Added type check to `ScalarToChoiceTransformer`
Discussion
----------
[2.0][Form] Added type check to ScalarToChoiceTransformer
Bug fix: yes
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
* 2.0:
[Validator] added support for grapheme_strlen when mbstring is not installed but intl is installed
removed separator of choice widget when the separator is null
Commits
-------
67c33a8 Rebased with master, and fixed wrong behavior with proper tests coverage
f8a6a4b Be sure that both fields have same value for required option in RepeatedType
0679220 Additional test coverage for changes in RepeatedType
b23d47d moved options test form from class->method scope
5fe5556 fixed accidental permission change
a969434 [Form] fixed CS, merged options, added tests
8819db3 [Form] Allow setting different options to repeating fields
Discussion
----------
[2.1] [Form] Allow setting different options at RepeatedType fields
This an test covered version of #1348 (rebased with master).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/06/27 04:18:19 -0700
@fabpot What do you think about this ? I'm just not sure that we should allow setting `required` per field, IMO better would be forcing this option from default `$options['options']` and ignore that field in `$options['first_options']` and/or `$options['second_options']`.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/07/02 00:00:04 -0700
@fabpot ping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/07/06 05:45:56 -0700
Let's discuss this new feature for 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/08/24 01:12:59 -0700
Rebased with master.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2011/09/04 05:02:42 -0700
@fabpot What do you think about this feature ? It is now time to discuss it :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/09/22 00:18:29 -0700
Tests do not pass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/09/24 01:54:42 -0700
@fabpot Should be ok now.
Commits
-------
c29fa9d [Form] Fix for treatment zero as empty data. Closes#1986
Discussion
----------
[Form] Fix for treatment zero as empty data. Closes#1986
For more info please read #1986.
Revert "[Form] CollectionType now checks for data_class parameter instead of only class."
This reverts commit 2e024f87a3.
Conflicts:
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/Form/Extension/Core/Type/CollectionTypeTest.php
Revert "[Form] Added ObjectFactoryListener. Fixes #1746."
This reverts commit 0327beb0b9.
Conflicts:
tests/Symfony/Tests/Component/Form/Extension/Core/Type/CollectionTypeTest.php
Commits
-------
52fdd53 [Bridge/Twig] Add required class to labels that match required fields
Discussion
----------
[Bridge/Twig] Add required class to labels that match required fields
I have used this to simply style labels that are required with a red star behind them using this CSS:
``` css
label.required::after {
content: " *";
color: #c00;
}
```
The problem is that you can't use `input[required] + label::after` as a selector since the label is typically rendered before the input. There is no way to check for an element that is *followed by* another, only elements *following*.
Of course this CSS in particular won't work except in the latest browsers, but you could still use the `label.required` selector to add a background image and so on. I think this is a very common use case and therefore I think it'd benefit the core framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/07/05 01:27:49 -0700
Can you also update the PHP templates?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2011/07/05 01:43:33 -0700
How about namespacing these css classes, like for example "sf-form-required"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/07/05 01:50:58 -0700
I would prefer an @schmittjoh naming, or even adding ability to setup it thought options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/07/05 01:54:36 -0700
Please, do not add more options. Prefix with `sf` is actually a good idea but people will argue that this is not a good idea because it gives too much information about the technology used to create the website (that's one of the things that came up pretty often in symfony1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2011/07/05 02:00:11 -0700
An option is not such a good idea imo since you likely want to have a uniform naming strategy across your entire site. How about adding a new service CssNamingStrategy?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/07/05 02:01:19 -0700
Then this can be some simpler one not giving such informations i.e.: `form-label-required`, `label-required`, `framework-form-required`, `form-required` or whatever else ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2011/07/05 02:16:41 -0700
It cannot be configurable as it would potentially break bundles that come with stylesheets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stloyd at 2011/07/05 02:21:10 -0700
IMO if we decide to add this one, we could add same to `inputs/selects/etc` with `required` option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2011/07/05 02:21:59 -0700
I think it can, consider an interface like this:
```php
interface CssNamingStrategyInterface
{
function getCssName($class);
}
```
This will give people a lot of flexibility, and it also does allow them to exclude classes which for example are provided by third-party bundles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/07/05 02:47:54 -0700
Wow guys, if this turns into a full blown class generator solution, I'm happy to close the PR.
"required" is not a name that's commonly used for main page elements, it's typically associated with forms, and therefore I don't see the need to make it unnecessary longer/namespaced. Similarly I don't see the need to add it to the input/select/.., because they already have an attribute, which you can very easily select as: `input[required]` in CSS. That works everywhere except IE6, but we can't build for the future on very old browsers. If you really want support for IE6, you can override the templates imo. But core should be looking forward, as it already is with HTML5, form markup, etc.
As for calling it form-label-required or label-required, again, I don't see the benefit, you can use `label.required` if you want to avoid conflicts with non-label elements having a required class, or a safer `form .required`. There are plenty of options in CSS itself, let's not make this overly complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2011/07/05 02:52:17 -0700
see
http://code.google.com/intl/de-DE/speed/page-speed/docs/rendering.html#UseEfficientCSSSelectors
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Seldaek <
reply@reply.github.com>wrote:
> Wow guys, if this turns into a full blown class generator solution, I'm
> happy to close the PR.
>
> "required" is not a name that's commonly used for main page elements, it's
> typically associated with forms, and therefore I don't see the need to make
> it unnecessary longer/namespaced. Similarly I don't see the need to add it
> to the input/select/.., because they already have an attribute, which you
> can very easily select as: `input[required]` in CSS. That works everywhere
> except IE6, but we can't build for the future on very old browsers. If you
> really want support for IE6, you can override the templates imo. But core
> should be looking forward, as it already is with HTML5, form markup, etc.
>
> As for calling it form-label-required or label-required, again, I don't see
> the benefit, you can use `label.required` if you want to avoid conflicts
> with non-label elements having a required class, or a safer `form
> .required`. There are plenty of options in CSS itself, let's not make this
> overly complex.
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/1519#issuecomment-1502560
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/07/05 03:11:50 -0700
Really? Come on, we're talking about forms, it's not like you have billions of form/input tags per page that have to be parsed by the browser when you select that. Also you don't have to select the elements, if you want true performance just use no stylesheet, your users will thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2011/07/05 03:30:40 -0700
Your CSS selectors not only affect the performance of form elements, but of all elements that have a "required" class. Likewise, the same applies if we decide to add more classes.
Why close the door for people who care about performance? We can easily avoid this by making the css class more specific as suggested earlier. The idea with the renaming strategy is one step further and allows people to "obfuscate" which tool was used to generate the form, or do additional optimizations like shortening the css name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by lenar at 2011/07/05 03:34:34 -0700
@Seldaek: Just for remark I've seen matrix forms spanning multiple screenfuls horizontally and vertically
containing tens of thousands inputs. Not pretty, but they do exist. Basically "poor" man's/company's excel
emulation or something.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Seldaek at 2011/07/05 04:19:13 -0700
@schmittjoh, @lenar: We're catering to the most common use case, for which this will be more than fast enough. Small/medium scale websites don't have to optimize on CSS rules parsing, they usually have much bigger issues to deal with. If you really care about it, overriding the block to remove the class is just as easy as it was to for me to add it, but IMO this is the edge case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2011/07/05 05:37:19 -0700
IMO Symfony should follow best practices by encouraging to use class selectors, and not tag selectors for the reasons explained on the page I linked.
Anyway, I think everybody made his points. Time for @fabpot to make a decision :)
Commits
-------
ef022c0 Removed the magical guessing of the type name to avoid WTF issues
Discussion
----------
Removed the magical guessing of the type name to avoid WTF issues
As discussed on IRC, this removes the magical method to avoid breaking the user-land code by reusing the same name than another type which overrides it. This makes the user aware that a type should have a name as they now have to implement the method themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jalliot at 2011/07/06 05:35:30 -0700
Doc and generator should be modified as well if it's merged.
