-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
[2.7] Remove BC api version in Validator #13358
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
7f8d9a0
to
8a4eae9
Compare
* The Validator API provided by Symfony 2.5 and newer with a backwards | ||
* compatibility layer for 2.4 and older. | ||
*/ | ||
const API_VERSION_2_5_BC = 3; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
BC break
1c8bbc4
to
bf8d57b
Compare
Ping @fabpot : Can you take a look at this one ? |
bf8d57b
to
7a758e4
Compare
@saro0h Unfortunately, I fail to explain what needed to be done. I won't have time today but let's talk about this one on Monday. |
Sure |
7a758e4
to
c3c65ef
Compare
@@ -321,32 +321,11 @@ public function setPropertyAccessor(PropertyAccessorInterface $propertyAccessor) | |||
/** | |||
* {@inheritdoc} | |||
*/ | |||
public function setApiVersion($apiVersion) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This cannot be removed (BC break)
@saro0h what needs to be done is moving everything which is in the LegacyValidator to its parent class RecursiveValidator directly (having the BC layer in the new class directly thanks to the bump to PHP 5.3.9+). The LegacyValidator would then become a deprecated child of the RecursiveValidator with no extra code in it. The 2.5 and 2.5-bc APIs would then be exactly the same (as we would be able to put the BC layer in 2.5 directly). The concept of API level needs to be kept for the case of the 2.4 API (using it is already deprecated) |
Here you go, I did it here: #13458 I close this PR as, hopefully, I will be able to do this work in 3.0. |
Linked to PR #13338 (comment).