Commits
-------
b6ac1aa [FORM] Give PropertyPath ability to read hassers
Discussion
----------
[Form] Give PropertyPath ability to read hassers
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: yes
Backwards compatibility break: no
Symfony2 tests pass: yes
Fixes the following tickets: -
Todo: -
Using a `hasser` instead of `isser` for Boolean values is pretty common. I've found myself using `issers` a handful of times just to make an interface play nice with the form component, but the code reads funny now. I don't think we should be accounting for every possible `getter` variation, but I think this one is common enough that it warrants a discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-03-11T08:25:31Z
I tend to agree with with. What do you think @bschussek?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-03-16T22:42:28Z
I'm not so sure. There are lots of reasons to write a *hasser* that accepts an argument (i.e. `User::hasRole($role)`). Doesn't seem as clean as *issers* and *getters*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by vicb at 2012-03-16T22:49:14Z
> There are lots of reasons to write a hasser that accepts an argument
May be can check for 0 args as we are already using reflexion ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-03-16T22:55:43Z
In that case we should check that there are either 0 arguments or only optional arguments and also consider adding the same logic to the other varieties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jjbohn at 2012-03-16T23:37:47Z
Passing arguments seems like a pretty big departure for PropertyPath. How would you annotate that? I'm not sure I see a common use case for needing arguments when mapping data to and from forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-03-16T23:50:22Z
@jjbohn it is not about passing arguments but about using the hasser only if it does not have required arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by jjbohn at 2012-03-17T01:54:18Z
Ah. I see. I have a tendency to read @kriswallsmith comments wrong :D. I could see that but iirc, there's not any current check like this on the other accessors. Happy to add it though if there's a consensus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-03-17T11:24:34Z
What's the point is checking the hasser/getter/isser arguments. It's up to the developer to check if he can use them or not. Let's not complexify the code for this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by kriswallsmith at 2012-03-17T15:37:39Z
My concern is that someone writes a hasser method on their model that is not intended for use with the form component but it's called anyway, leading to WTFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by stof at 2012-04-03T22:28:21Z
@fabpot what's your decision about this ?
@jjbohn you need to rebase your PR. It conflicts with master as tests have been moved
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bschussek at 2012-04-05T14:53:55Z
@kriswallsmith is right. The check for 1 === $method->getNumberOfRequiredParameters() can (and should) easily be added to all of the if-clauses here.
Apart from that, I'm okay with adding this.
20a9961711