Accessor fixups. #18874
Open
Accessor fixups. #18874
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I am not in favor of this unnecessary complication when using virtual getters/accessors avoids this problem. |
|
Do we have an alternative approach/fix? |
|
I am also in the boat of "this feels wrong" but I haven't had the time to think about this for more than a few minutes. |
markstory
reviewed
Oct 24, 2025
Comment on lines
+1859
to
+1861
| if ($forPersistence) { | ||
| return $value; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be a simpler design (or simpler application code) if this branch was a separate method? The opt-in flow becomes simpler as you have to create a method. It is also simpler to read as there are two separate methods which should reduce branching in application code.
protected function _getPasswordForPersistence(?string $value)
{
return $value;
}
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Do we want to fix up #17921 during 5.* ?
If so, would this be a correct approach to it? I dont think so, but I am not sure how to tackle this.
So for, this PR seems to