[DI] Mark service_container a private service #22806

ro0NL · 2017-05-20T16:10:45Z

Q	A
Branch?	3.4
Bug fix?	no
New feature?	yes
BC breaks?	no
Deprecations?	yes
Tests pass?	yes
Fixed tickets	#...
License	MIT
Doc PR	symfony/symfony-docs#...

follow up of #21627 and marks the service_containerdefinition private thus simplifies code, i think it makes sense :)

Koc · 2017-05-20T22:02:35Z

src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/Container.php

@@ -229,6 +229,8 @@ public function has($id)
    {
        for ($i = 2;;) {
            if ('service_container' === $id) {
+                @trigger_error('Checking for the existence of the "service_container" private service is deprecated since Symfony 3.2 and won\'t be supported anymore in Symfony 4.0.', E_USER_DEPRECATED);


ro0NL · 2017-05-21T06:35:52Z

src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/ContainerBuilder.php

@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ public function __construct(ParameterBagInterface $parameterBag = null)
        parent::__construct($parameterBag);

        $this->trackResources = interface_exists('Symfony\Component\Config\Resource\ResourceInterface');
-        $this->setDefinition('service_container', (new Definition(ContainerInterface::class))->setSynthetic(true));
+        $this->setDefinition('service_container', (new Definition(parent::class))->setSynthetic(true)->setPublic(false));


should we qualify using parent::class a bugfix?, given https://github.com/ro0NL/symfony/blob/c3e5afa75c820eb4cad0fecc6ddb40055b75a389/src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/ContainerBuilder.php#L1171

nope: the base container class can be changed when the container is dumped
but of course, the base class of ContainerBuilder cannot
so everything is fine, and this change should be reverted

ro0NL · 2017-05-21T06:36:06Z

src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/Compiler/InlineServiceDefinitionsPass.php

@@ -64,6 +64,10 @@ protected function processValue($value, $isRoot = false)
     */
    private function isInlineableDefinition($id, Definition $definition, ServiceReferenceGraph $graph)
    {
+        if ('service_container' === $id) {


same.. probably a bugfix?

service_container was public, so this wouldn't change anything as a bug fix

ro0NL · 2017-05-24T07:02:58Z

Given #22866 i think ContainerBuilder::get('service_container') should remain working; lets be consistent :)

Status: needs work

stof · 2017-05-24T07:57:22Z

src/Symfony/Bundle/WebProfilerBundle/Tests/DependencyInjection/WebProfilerExtensionTest.php

@@ -31,6 +31,9 @@ public static function assertSaneContainer(Container $container, $message = '')
    {
        $errors = array();
        foreach ($container->getServiceIds() as $id) {
+            if ('service_container' === $id) { // to be removed in 4.0


having to add such check is because there is no way to opt-in in the new behavior of getServiceIds, and then we have to skip the private services to avoid deprecations later. This causes issues (see also #22866 which faces the same issue).

Can we implement a hidden argument allowing to opt-in for the new behavior instead, to get only public ids ?

Not sure.. wouldnt this be over complex? <4.0 getServiceIds includes privates, using those with get() etc. is non-crashing, in >=4.0 those id's are exlcuded as they are crashing. I could live with that.

For the SF codebase i think explicitly skippping is just fine =/

it is non-crashing, but it triggers deprecation warnings everywhere. And there is no way to avoid this unless you know the ids of all private services (and then, you could as well know the ids of all public services and avoid calling getServiceIds)

I think the hidden arg makes sense, it could be added to #22866

stof · 2017-05-24T07:59:20Z

src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/Tests/Fixtures/php/services13.php

@@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ public function __construct()
        $this->methodMap = array(
            'bar' => 'getBarService',
        );
+        $this->privates = array(
+            'service_container' => true,


should we actually dump it in this array ? It receives a special treatment when getting it anyway

Could be left out indeed, but im not sure if we care :) as it requires adding code; which defeats this PR :)

stof · 2017-05-24T08:00:31Z

I don't see how it makes the code simpler. It is actually adding code here

ro0NL · 2017-05-24T09:13:20Z

In general i think as of 4.0 it simplifies things :) looking at all checks that can be removed as of 4.0

But more important; i think it's better behavior.

sstok · 2017-05-26T09:01:45Z

src/Symfony/Component/DependencyInjection/Compiler/CheckDefinitionValidityPass.php

@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ public function process(ContainerBuilder $container)
    {
        foreach ($container->getDefinitions() as $id => $definition) {
            // synthetic service is public
-            if ($definition->isSynthetic() && !$definition->isPublic()) {
+            if ($definition->isSynthetic() && !$definition->isPublic() && 'service_container' !== $id) {


Can be moved before isSynthetic() as this it's faster (micro optimization).

fabpot · 2017-07-04T07:00:07Z

I don't see the point. It makes upgrading more complex, it does not simplify code that much. I'm 👎 for such a change.

ro0NL · 2017-07-04T09:47:25Z

I still think marking it private makes sense... mostly because $container->get('service_container') doesnt :) (AFAIK this would be the only upgrade step, using $container directly in that case).

But yeah.. we dont really need to care about this, and perhaps not worth the effort. Closing for now :)

carsonbot added Status: Needs Review DependencyInjection Feature Deprecation labels May 20, 2017

Koc reviewed May 20, 2017

View reviewed changes

ro0NL commented May 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

nicolas-grekas modified the milestone: 3.4 May 21, 2017

[DI] Mark service_container a private service

09f5bc5

nicolas-grekas self-requested a review May 22, 2017 06:58

carsonbot added Status: Needs Work and removed Status: Needs Review labels May 24, 2017

stof reviewed May 24, 2017

View reviewed changes

nicolas-grekas removed their request for review May 24, 2017 09:12

sstok reviewed May 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

ro0NL closed this Jul 4, 2017

ro0NL deleted the di/private-service-container branch July 4, 2017 09:47

Uh oh!

[DI] Mark service_container a private service #22806

[DI] Mark service_container a private service #22806

Uh oh!

Conversation

ro0NL commented May 20, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ro0NL commented May 24, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

stof commented May 24, 2017

Uh oh!

ro0NL commented May 24, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

sstok May 26, 2017 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jul 4, 2017

Uh oh!

ro0NL commented Jul 4, 2017

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ro0NL commented May 20, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ro0NL commented May 24, 2017 •

edited

Loading

sstok May 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading