-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
[HttpFoundation] Allow to not pass a parameter to Request::isMethodSafe() #34167
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
Merged
nicolas-grekas
merged 1 commit into
symfony:4.3
from
dunglas:fix-isMethodSafe-upgrade-path
Oct 29, 2019
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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.
I guess this did not happen? 🙈
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.
Actually, shouldn't we trigger a deprecation here, if an argument is passed? This is according to the original plan: #20603 (comment)
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.
Sorry, I see it's already done in 4.4: #31658
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 change seems dangerous actually. Consider this scenario:
$request->isMethodSafe()
calls which expect the old behaviour (i.e.$andCacheable = true
)Safer alternative: In API Platform (and other bundles which need to support both Symfony 4.3 and Symfony 4.4 without triggering a deprecation), I think we should do version detection and make the call accordingly.
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 upgrade path is not supported - one must go through 3.4 and fix deprecations. We don't support another path.
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.
I'm trying to understand the rationale behind the double deprecation strategy, i.e.:
$andCacheable
argument withfalse
value in3.2
.$andCacheable
argument withfalse
value in4.0
.$andCacheable
argument in4.1
4.4
.It seems to me like it's meant to prevent having unexpected behaviour when the deprecation is not caught during the upgrade process (and this can and does happen - it's impossible to catch all deprecations). And this PR seems to break the safety net afforded by this strategy.
But then again I might be overthinking this, and the double deprecation might just be out of necessity.
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.
The reasoning is that the deprecation is triggered in 3.4. So we can assume in 4.x that it's been taken into account.