[2.2] [Routing] add escaping syntax for placeholders #4563
Closed
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
fabpot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 3, 2012
This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- 005a9a3 [Routing] fixed RouteCompiler for adjacent and nested placeholders Discussion ---------- [2.2] [Routing] fixed RouteCompiler for adjacent placeholders Tests pass: yes Feature addition: no Fixes: #4215 BC break: no - Nesting placeholders works now properly, e.g. `/{foo{bar}}`. Only `bar` is a variable, the rest is static text. - Variables without separator work now correctly too, e.g. `/{w}{x}{y}{z}.{_format}`. All variables will have the correct default regex in the current manner, that is exclude the previous static char and the next static char (which means disregarding the placeholder in between that have no seperator). As you can see, I have not modified any tests, only added some. So this change is BC. The compiler now works under all conditions and does not fail for such patterns. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2012-05-08T22:34:58Z ready for review / merging Thanks @snc for giving a helpful tip. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2012-06-12T23:22:54Z fabpot told me, he doesn't like PRs that both fix and enhance stuff. So I reworked this PR so that it only contains the bug fixes. The new PR #4563 contains the feature addition. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2012-06-26T12:33:43Z ping @fabpot --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2012-08-14T16:29:27Z Why wait for 2.2? It's a bugfix only, without BC break. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2012-08-31T17:04:37Z @fabpot I think this should go into 2.1
|
It's ready. |
|
I'm -1 for this PR. It complexifies the code for a situation that never occurs. |
|
It's true that it basically never occurs. But if #5424 gets implemented, we probably need some way of escaping. Otherwise |
|
Closing because it will be covered by #7051. |
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.
Test pass: yes
Feature addition: yes
BC break: only if somebody used a route like
/\{var}that is now used as escaping syntaxYou can now have
{foo}inside a route as static text instead of beeing considered as variable. This can be achieved by escaping it with "" as suggested by @Seldaek, e.g.\{foo}. This is consistent as other languages use "" as escaping char too, e.g. PHP itself and PCRE regular expressions.