Hey!

I think @BafS has recently worked with this code. Maybe they can help review this?

Cheers!

Carsonbot

I'm not against this feature, but we should stop "polluting" the abstract class. Our long-term goal is to get rid of it. In my opinion, we should finish and merge #38487 first, then add features such as this one as small, single-responsibility classes.

Sure, I agree that it would be clearer.
But #38487 is more than one year old and the last activity was on Oct 2021and unfinished, so this "small" feature will maybe wait more than one year before being integrated because of that. It's sad to read.

Any help is welcome to finish #38487.

I have a question. Not about the pull request but more about a way to go faster in my company's project.
I really need that functionality and I'm looking for a workaround.
It looks like I have to wait for #38487 that is untouched since Oct 20, 2020 and still on study. So I can avoid this because I'll be fired of my company if I tell them they have to wait 2 years ton continue the project :D.
I could work with my fork, but it's not a good idea because I don't know if the feature would be integrated in the future and I'll miss possible security fixes.
I think the best option would be to use jms/serializer that allow to do, but I didn't want to multiply serialization systems.
I know it's a limit in opensource projects and new features.
Do you see better options in my case, I'm pretty sure you already had this kind of problems.

Thank you.

@fbiesse you can always create your own custom normalizer in your application to support your needs. That way you only need to maintain the normalizer instead of the whole fork.

I have a question. Not about the pull request but more about a way to go faster in my company's project. I really need that functionality and I'm looking for a workaround. It looks like I have to wait for #38487 that is untouched since Oct 20, 2020 and still on study. So I can avoid this because I'll be fired of my company if I tell them they have to wait 2 years ton continue the project :D. I could work with my fork, but it's not a good idea because I don't know if the feature would be integrated in the future and I'll miss possible security fixes. I think the best option would be to use jms/serializer that allow to do, but I didn't want to multiply serialization systems. I know it's a limit in opensource projects and new features. Do you see better options in my case, I'm pretty sure you already had this kind of problems.

Thank you.

#38487 is somewhat finished for what I could do, the remaining issue is linked to #38487 (comment), if you can find a solution the PR will be unblocked, but there is not much to change appart from that.

I just don't want to finish #38487 for my simple need. For me it's out of the context of this PR.

#38487 have been closed. Is there any interest in updating this PR?

Automapper allows skipping the constructor using #[Mapper(constructorStrategy: ConstructorStrategy::NEVER)]. That can be considered as an alternative solution.