Content renderer simplification #6829

fabpot · 2013-01-22T09:28:08Z

Q	A
Bug fix?	no
New feature?	no
BC breaks?	no
Deprecations?	no
Tests pass?	yes
Fixed tickets	n/a
License	MIT
Doc PR	symfony/symfony-docs#2179

Todo:

submit a PR for documentation update

The first commit makes the Request required when dealing with rendering strategies (see the commit why this was a bad idea to make it optional in the first place).

The second commit removes the need for a proxy route and replaces it with the same system we have in the security component.

The third commit makes the proxy path configurable (default to /_proxy).

This PR has been triggered by a discussion on #6791.

fabpot · 2013-01-22T09:49:37Z

My opinion:

The first commit should be merged.
For the second and third one, I don't have a strong opinion. One of the benefits that the content renderer and its strategies do not rely on the Routing component anymore.

@Tobion

This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- cdf1d72 [FrameworkBundle] fixed requirement of the _controller palceholder for the proxy route (closes #6783) Discussion ---------- [FrameworkBundle] fixed requirement of the _controller palceholder for the proxy route (closes #6783) | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | yes | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | #6783 | License | MIT | Doc PR | n/a --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-18T10:23:06Z What about a UT ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-18T11:28:41Z and the syntax is wrong also ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by gimler at 2013-01-21T19:59:57Z same problem the sonata admin bundle use ``` {% render 'sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction' %} ``` rewrite to ``` {% render controller('sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction') %} ``` throws ``` An exception has been thrown during the rendering of a template ("Parameter "_controller" for route "_proxy" must match "[^/\.]++" ("sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction" given) to generate a corresponding URL.") in "SonataAdminBundle:CRUD:edit.html.twig". ``` with the requirement fix it throws ``` An exception has been thrown during the rendering of a template ("Unable to parse the controller name "sonata".") in "SonataAdminBundle:CRUD:edit.html.twig". ``` --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T06:40:14Z ok, I've updated the patch. There is now a static segment (`/for`) between the controller and the format, which should fix the problem. While thinking about this, there is another option, which might be even better: removing the need for the proxy route altogether and check for a defined path like `/_proxy`. It would remove the dependency on a Url Generator in the rendering strategy, and would not make the router proxy listener any more complex. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by gimler at 2013-01-22T07:20:43Z +1 for me the patch works i will open a PR for sonata doctrine orm bundle ``` {% render controller('sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction', {}, { 'code': sonata_admin.field_description.associationadmin.code, 'objectId': sonata_admin.field_description.associationadmin.id(sonata_admin.value), 'uniqid': sonata_admin.field_description.associationadmin.uniqid }) ``` --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by gimler at 2013-01-22T07:22:21Z When the proxy route is nessesary we should add a note into the upgrade guide. +1 for less complexesy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T08:02:12Z There is one issue with removing the proxy route: when generating a proxy URL, we need a Request instance, which is not always the case. I'm going to submit another PR to "fix" that first. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-22T08:17:51Z > It would remove the dependency Paul leaves this body :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T08:53:52Z I don't think removing the proxy route is good. That's the purpose of the routing system to handle generating and matching. Now if you do it manually it will probably show a bad approach to people to handle such stuff. Also people cannot see what routes are defined explicitly and use tools like `router:debug`. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T09:28:55Z @Tobion: see #6829 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T09:57:57Z I've again changed the route pattern to avoid any possible problems (even if a controller contains a `/`). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T10:16:03Z Can a controller contain `/`? It's neither a valid service nor a valid class name or? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by mvrhov at 2013-01-22T10:40:26Z AFAIK yes, at least I used Namespace/SubController more then once...

fabpot · 2013-01-22T15:22:47Z

Any comments? ping @Tobion @vicb

vicb · 2013-01-22T15:45:59Z

src/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/RenderingStrategy/DefaultRenderingStrategy.php


        $subRequest = Request::create($uri, 'get', array(), $cookies, array(), $server);
-        if (null !== $request && $session = $request->getSession()) {
+        if ($session = $request->getSession()) {


Is the condition useful here ?

yes, because you can disable the session entirely in FrameworkBundle

Also the phpdoc says it can return null.

I still don't see the pb with set(null) ?

ok, now I see :)

Tobion · 2013-01-22T16:07:15Z

Shouldn't the class name be like SubRequestRenderingStrategyInterface because currently it does not say anything about what is rendered. RenderingStrategyInterface makes it look like it's for rendering a normal master request, i.e. templating.

vicb · 2013-01-22T16:12:43Z

src/Symfony/Bundle/FrameworkBundle/DependencyInjection/Configuration.php

+        $rootNode
+            ->children()
+                ->arrayNode('proxy')
+                    ->info('proxy configuration')


->addDefaultsIfNotSet() ?

Like ESI (and many other things in Symfony), everything that is optional must be explicitly enabled (also because it has some performance overhead).

I agree but then it should be

<?php ->addDefaultsIfNotSet() ->canBeEnabled()

This is wrong. The addDefaultsIfNotSet() will always enable the configuration even if it is not present. That's not what we want as explained in my previous comment.

@fabpot you are confusing canBeEnabled and canBeDisabled. In canBeEnabled, the enabled flag defaults to false

I've just talked with @vicb about this:

the current configuration works just fine

the one proposed by Victor does not work (as you need to explicitly set enabled: true to enable it).

Well it works perfectly when I test, I'll submit a PR.

@fabpot please add to your merger guidelines to never ever again merge a PR w/o [updated] UTs. I have to update many things for such a benign change !

fabpot · 2013-01-22T16:19:26Z

@Tobion: This was actually the first name I had but I found it too long. It is indeed rendering a normal request, but only in the context of a master request.

Tobion · 2013-01-22T16:23:25Z

I found the correct term for what this is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion
So it should probably be like Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Transclusion/TransclusionInterface
or TransclusionStrategyInterface.
So the term rendering is misleading as it does not really render the subrequest, but only prints a reference to the subrequest. The rendering is done by ESI processor or hinclude etc.

fabpot · 2013-01-22T16:37:00Z

The RenderingStrategyInterface does render a request and returns a Response. One of the strategy consist of returning an ESI tag, but this is still a Response.

I don't like introducing the Transclusion word as (at least for me) it does not evoke anything.

Tobion · 2013-01-22T16:46:10Z

Also DefaultRenderingStrategy is not saying anything. What is default? It should express that it directly includes the resource in the other (term integrate comes to my mind).

kriswallsmith · 2013-01-22T17:23:21Z

How about InlineRenderingStrategy?

vicb · 2013-01-22T17:25:17Z

@Tobion @kriswallsmith 👍

kriswallsmith · 2013-01-22T17:26:17Z

Also, SubRequestStrategyInterface may be more apparent (InlineSubRequestStrategy, EsiSubRequestStrategy…)

Tobion · 2013-01-22T18:10:19Z

SubRequestStrategyInterface is missing the verb somehow. A strategy for what? @kriswallsmith as an English native speaker, is transclusion also not convenient for you?

fabpot · 2013-01-22T18:11:41Z

Thanks for all your suggestions, I appreciate them, but what about the whole approach? Do you agree that it is better than the current one? I'd like to avoid the bikeshedding if the approach is not better.

kriswallsmith · 2013-01-22T18:17:46Z

src/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/RenderingStrategy/ProxyAwareRenderingStrategy.php

+
+        $reference->attributes['_controller'] = $reference->controller;
+
+        $reference->query['path'] = http_build_query($reference->attributes, '', '&');


Change this key to _path?

Good catch, done

kriswallsmith · 2013-01-22T18:22:47Z

👍 for removing the router dependency.

@Tobion perhaps request is the verb there?

Tobion · 2013-01-22T19:51:20Z

I'm also fine with making it independent from the routing component because routing is about making routes configurable with placeholders etc. for nice URLs. But this is not needed for a proxy feature.

kriswallsmith · 2013-01-22T20:13:48Z

@fabpot Do you anticipate ever wanting a sub request to be handled differently based on HTTP method? Just thinking of possible reasons to continue using the routing component here…

fabpot · 2013-01-22T20:40:06Z

No, sub-requests only make sense for GET requests. In fact, we even enforce that in HttpContentRenderer.

fabpot · 2013-01-23T06:51:54Z

I'm not going to discuss names further in the context of this PR as it has already been discussed in the initial PR that introduced these classes and because this PR does not change anything to the meaning of these classes. If you think the names can be better, feel free to open a ticket and discuss names there.

vicb · 2013-01-23T07:26:17Z

src/Symfony/Bundle/FrameworkBundle/DependencyInjection/Configuration.php

+        $rootNode
+            ->children()
+                ->arrayNode('router_proxy')
+                    ->info('router proxy configuration')


May be the info should be more specific and indicate that the router is used for the http renderers

vicb · 2013-01-23T07:48:36Z

If I understand correctly, both hsi and esi will generate path starting with "/_proxy", isn't it a problem wrt access_control ? should it be possible to configure a per strategy path ?

vicb · 2013-01-23T08:31:37Z

Some more points:

Should we validate that the router_proxy is enabled when esi are enabled (early failure ?)
Should we be able to enable each strategy individually (ie no need to expose the signer when hsi are not used)

fabpot · 2013-01-23T09:58:45Z

Enabling the router proxy when using ESI si not required. The router proxy is "only" required when you use the controller Twig function (or the equivalent in PHP -> ControllerReference). But we can probably throw an exception in the ControllerReference constructor if the proxy is not enabled.

Enabling each strategy individually is indeed a good idea (and that's more a general question as we could do the same for the translator loaders, or the service container loaders). Let's create another issue on this global topic.

vicb · 2013-01-23T10:10:29Z

But we can probably throw an exception in the ControllerReference constructor if the proxy is not enabled.

It should probably be in a wrapper class then ?

fabpot · 2013-01-23T12:45:36Z

The listener does not need to work with fragments as URLs as they are never part of the generated URL.

The previous code allowed to pass null as a Request but that does not really make sense as rendering a sub-request can only happen from a master request. This was done to ease testing but that was a mistake.

@Tobion

This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- 23f5145 renamed proxy to router_proxy e5135f6 [HttpKernel] renamed path to _path to avoid collision 3193a90 made the proxy path configurable ad82893 removed the need for a proxy route for rendering strategies b9f0e17 [HttpKernel] made the Request required when using rendering strategies Discussion ---------- Content renderer simplification | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | n/a | License | MIT | Doc PR | symfony/symfony-docs#2179 Todo: - [x] submit a PR for documentation update The first commit makes the Request required when dealing with rendering strategies (see the commit why this was a bad idea to make it optional in the first place). The second commit removes the need for a proxy route and replaces it with the same system we have in the security component. The third commit makes the proxy path configurable (default to `/_proxy`). This PR has been triggered by a discussion on #6791. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T09:49:37Z My opinion: * The first commit should be merged. * For the second and third one, I don't have a strong opinion. One of the benefits that the content renderer and its strategies do not rely on the Routing component anymore. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T15:22:47Z Any comments? ping @Tobion @vicb --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T16:07:15Z Shouldn't the class name be like `SubRequestRenderingStrategyInterface` because currently it does not say anything about what is rendered. `RenderingStrategyInterface` makes it look like it's for rendering a normal master request, i.e. templating. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T16:19:26Z @Tobion: This was actually the first name I had but I found it too long. It is indeed rendering a normal request, but only in the context of a master request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T16:23:25Z I found the correct term for what this is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion So it should probably be like `Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Transclusion/TransclusionInterface` or `TransclusionStrategyInterface`. So the term `rendering` is misleading as it does not really render the subrequest, but only prints a reference to the subrequest. The rendering is done by ESI processor or hinclude etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T16:37:00Z The `RenderingStrategyInterface` does render a request and returns a Response. One of the strategy consist of returning an ESI tag, but this is still a Response. I don't like introducing the `Transclusion` word as (at least for me) it does not evoke anything. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T16:46:10Z Also `DefaultRenderingStrategy` is not saying anything. What is default? It should express that it directly includes the resource in the other (term `integrate` comes to my mind). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T17:23:21Z How about `InlineRenderingStrategy`? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-22T17:25:17Z @Tobion @kriswallsmith 👍 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T17:26:17Z Also, `SubRequestStrategyInterface` may be more apparent (`InlineSubRequestStrategy`, `EsiSubRequestStrategy`…) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T18:10:19Z `SubRequestStrategyInterface` is missing the verb somehow. A strategy for what? @kriswallsmith as an English native speaker, is transclusion also not convenient for you? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T18:11:41Z Thanks for all your suggestions, I appreciate them, but what about the whole approach? Do you agree that it is better than the current one? I'd like to avoid the bikeshedding if the approach is not better. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T18:22:47Z :+1: for removing the router dependency. @Tobion perhaps request is the verb there? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T19:51:20Z I'm also fine with making it independent from the routing component because routing is about making routes configurable with placeholders etc. for nice URLs. But this is not needed for a proxy feature. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T20:13:48Z @fabpot Do you anticipate ever wanting a sub request to be handled differently based on HTTP method? Just thinking of possible reasons to continue using the routing component here… --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T20:40:06Z No, sub-requests only make sense for GET requests. In fact, we even enforce that in HttpContentRenderer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T06:51:54Z I'm not going to discuss names further in the context of this PR as it has already been discussed in the initial PR that introduced these classes and because this PR does not change anything to the meaning of these classes. If you think the names can be better, feel free to open a ticket and discuss names there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T07:48:36Z If I understand correctly, both hsi and esi will generate path starting with "/_proxy", isn't it a problem wrt access_control ? should it be possible to configure a per strategy path ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T07:56:11Z @vicb: Yes, all strategies use the `/_proxy` path when the developer uses a controller reference. But the router proxy takes care of securing the route, so there is no need to do it yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T08:07:36Z @fabpot that's smart, I've missed it. Some questions though (they should be answered by UT I think - and might already have been, I have not checked) - Isn't there a pb with urlencoding in the listener ? - Would the listener work with fragments (`#...') ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T08:31:37Z Some more points: - Should we validate that the router_proxy is enabled when esi are enabled (early failure ?) - Should we be able to enable each strategy individually (ie no need to expose the signer when hsi are not used) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T09:58:45Z Enabling the router proxy when using ESI si not required. The router proxy is "only" required when you use the `controller` Twig function (or the equivalent in PHP -> `ControllerReference`). But we can probably throw an exception in the `ControllerReference` constructor if the proxy is not enabled. Enabling each strategy individually is indeed a good idea (and that's more a general question as we could do the same for the translator loaders, or the service container loaders). Let's create another issue on this global topic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T10:10:29Z > But we can probably throw an exception in the ControllerReference constructor if the proxy is not enabled. It should probably be in a wrapper class then ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T12:45:36Z The listener does not need to work with fragments as URLs as they are never part of the generated URL.

vicb · 2013-01-23T13:08:10Z

@fabpot merged ? what about:

the config, see my comment above,
a changelog,
urldecoding & signer in the listener, should I assume this is ok ?

fabpot · 2013-01-23T13:27:13Z

Indeed, I forgot to update the CHANGELOG (fixed now).
For the config, I've created an issue as this is a larger issue that we have elsewhere in the framework; the implementation here is consistent with other parts of the framework (#6849) and anyway it has nothing to do with this PR.
The way the listener works has not been changed by the changes introduced in this PR.

vicb · 2013-01-23T13:31:52Z

I am talking about the config issue that is related to this PR.

fabpot · 2013-01-23T13:32:46Z

Sorry, I must have missed it. Which config issue?

vicb · 2013-01-23T13:34:11Z

I haven't linked it because it should be in the outdated diff, you should be able to find it there.

fabpot · 2013-01-23T13:36:21Z

I have reopened all outdated comments and I don't see anything that were not taken into account.

vicb · 2013-01-23T13:39:10Z

#6829 (comment)

see symfony#6829

This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- 7ab8be5 replaced the proxy route with a listener Discussion ---------- replaced the proxy route with a listener see symfony/symfony#6829

The internal route has been removed, see symfony/symfony#6829 for details.

This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- 760d624 Update the security config with the latest Sf2.2 changes Discussion ---------- Update the security config with the latest Sf2.2 changes The internal route has been removed, see symfony/symfony#6829 for details.

@schmittjoh

This PR was squashed before being merged into the master branch (closes symfony#6852). Commits ------- fde7585 [DIC] Better handling of enableable configurations Discussion ---------- [DIC] Better handling of enableable configurations | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | yes | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no, this feature has not been released yet | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | - | License | MIT | Doc PR | - My definition of bug fix might be discussable. The thing which I think is not discussable is that this PR fixes the semantic - and I think it is important for a "semantic configuration": before this PR, some nodes had `->canBeDisabled` for nodes that were actually disabled by default. Those nodes now have `->canBeEnabled` which sounds right. **Edit: Jan 28, 2013** - history: See [the related comments](symfony#6829 (comment)). I think Symfony **must** get the configuration right as we can expect of lot of devs to use this as a template when writting their own configuration. @schmittjoh could you please give me your feedback on [this change](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/6852/files#L4R224) considering [the rationale](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/6852/files#L3R7). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2013-01-23T16:10:33Z @vicb your links are broken as they are pointing to the PR creation page --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2013-01-23T16:10:55Z and to create a TODO list, it has to be a list first --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T16:31:10Z @stof thanks for reporting the broken links, they are fixed /cc @schmittjoh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T16:31:50Z @Tobion please submit a PR to my repo, I don't have much time to work on this. Thanks ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-25T15:14:47Z @fabpot @schmittjoh I'd like your feedback on the latest commit, rationale is in the method phpDoc. It better matches what we do now and seem the most sensible thing to do. edit: with this you can no more disable the node explicitly, I have to find a better solution --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by schmittjoh at 2013-01-25T15:20:13Z Looks good. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Victor Berchet <[email protected]>wrote: > @fabpot <https://github.com/fabpot> @schmittjoh<https://github.com/schmittjoh>I'd like your feedback on the latest commit, rationale is in the method > phpDoc. It better matches what we do now and seem the most sensible thing > to do. > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<symfony#6852 (comment)>. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T14:37:57Z @fabpot I know I keep insisting on this one and I am sorry for that but I think this should be considered as a bug fix (see the PR header for details) and should be merged in 2.2. I think the Symfony core should be exemplary as it is used by many developers as a template when creating their own bundle. *This PR is no more a WIP and can be merged right now*. In addition to fixing the enableable nodes, this PR contain new UTs and some fixes to the code / tests. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-28T16:43:42Z @vicb As explained in a comment, this is not a BC break as this feature does not exist in 2.1. So, I can make the change to the CHANGELOG if you want after merging, or I can let you make the change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T16:46:33Z I am going to change it right now ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T16:46:56Z (and thanks for having checked this) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T16:54:37Z @fabpot I have updated the changelog and the PR header. I am not sure if the commits should be squashed or not. On one side the multiple commits can help understand the changes but on the other side that's a lot of small commits which could pollute history. I let you choose what to do.

@schmittjoh

This PR was squashed before being merged into the master branch (closes #6852). Commits ------- fde7585 [DIC] Better handling of enableable configurations Discussion ---------- [DIC] Better handling of enableable configurations | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | yes | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no, this feature has not been released yet | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | - | License | MIT | Doc PR | - My definition of bug fix might be discussable. The thing which I think is not discussable is that this PR fixes the semantic - and I think it is important for a "semantic configuration": before this PR, some nodes had `->canBeDisabled` for nodes that were actually disabled by default. Those nodes now have `->canBeEnabled` which sounds right. **Edit: Jan 28, 2013** - history: See [the related comments](symfony/symfony#6829 (comment)). I think Symfony **must** get the configuration right as we can expect of lot of devs to use this as a template when writting their own configuration. @schmittjoh could you please give me your feedback on [this change](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/6852/files#L4R224) considering [the rationale](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/pull/6852/files#L3R7). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2013-01-23T16:10:33Z @vicb your links are broken as they are pointing to the PR creation page --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by stof at 2013-01-23T16:10:55Z and to create a TODO list, it has to be a list first --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T16:31:10Z @stof thanks for reporting the broken links, they are fixed /cc @schmittjoh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T16:31:50Z @Tobion please submit a PR to my repo, I don't have much time to work on this. Thanks ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-25T15:14:47Z @fabpot @schmittjoh I'd like your feedback on the latest commit, rationale is in the method phpDoc. It better matches what we do now and seem the most sensible thing to do. edit: with this you can no more disable the node explicitly, I have to find a better solution --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by schmittjoh at 2013-01-25T15:20:13Z Looks good. On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Victor Berchet <[email protected]>wrote: > @fabpot <https://github.com/fabpot> @schmittjoh<https://github.com/schmittjoh>I'd like your feedback on the latest commit, rationale is in the method > phpDoc. It better matches what we do now and seem the most sensible thing > to do. > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<symfony/symfony#6852 (comment)>. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T14:37:57Z @fabpot I know I keep insisting on this one and I am sorry for that but I think this should be considered as a bug fix (see the PR header for details) and should be merged in 2.2. I think the Symfony core should be exemplary as it is used by many developers as a template when creating their own bundle. *This PR is no more a WIP and can be merged right now*. In addition to fixing the enableable nodes, this PR contain new UTs and some fixes to the code / tests. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-28T16:43:42Z @vicb As explained in a comment, this is not a BC break as this feature does not exist in 2.1. So, I can make the change to the CHANGELOG if you want after merging, or I can let you make the change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T16:46:33Z I am going to change it right now ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T16:46:56Z (and thanks for having checked this) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-28T16:54:37Z @fabpot I have updated the changelog and the PR header. I am not sure if the commits should be squashed or not. On one side the multiple commits can help understand the changes but on the other side that's a lot of small commits which could pollute history. I let you choose what to do.

Since the request was made a required argument to the `render()` method in symfony#6829, this test became a duplicate of `testRenderFallbackToInlineStrategyIfEsiNotSupported()`.

…Renderer (jakzal) This PR was merged into the 2.3 branch. Discussion ---------- [HttpKernel] Remove a duplicate test for the EsiFragmentRenderer | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | - | License | MIT | Doc PR | - Since the request was made a required argument to the `render()` method in #6829, this [test became a duplicate](https://github.com/fabpot/symfony/blob/23f51450bd5af35055db47b1787b5623b78df29b/src/Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Tests/RenderingStrategy/EsiRenderingStrategyTest.php#L28-L38) of `testRenderFallbackToInlineStrategyIfEsiNotSupported()`. Commits ------- 44d57a3 [HttpKernel] Remove a duplicate test for the EsiFragmentRenderer

fabpot mentioned this pull request Jan 22, 2013

[FrameworkBundle] fixed requirement of the _controller placeholder for the proxy route (closes #6783) #6791

Merged

vicb reviewed Jan 22, 2013
View reviewed changes

kriswallsmith reviewed Jan 22, 2013
View reviewed changes

vicb reviewed Jan 23, 2013
View reviewed changes

fabpot mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2013

replaced the proxy route with a listener symfony/symfony-docs#2179

Merged

fabpot added 5 commits January 23, 2013 13:57

[HttpKernel] made the Request required when using rendering strategies

b9f0e17

The previous code allowed to pass null as a Request but that does not really make sense as rendering a sub-request can only happen from a master request. This was done to ease testing but that was a mistake.

removed the need for a proxy route for rendering strategies

ad82893

made the proxy path configurable

3193a90

[HttpKernel] renamed path to _path to avoid collision

e5135f6

renamed proxy to router_proxy

23f5145

fabpot merged commit 23f5145 into symfony:master Jan 23, 2013

vicb added a commit to vicb/symfony that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2013

[FrameworkBundle] Fix the DI config

728dd93

see symfony#6829

kriswallsmith mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2013

[HttpKernel] renamed sub-request classes #6871

Closed

vicb mentioned this pull request Jan 25, 2013

Update the security config with the latest Sf2.2 changes symfony/symfony-standard#482

Merged

cordoval pushed a commit to cordoval/symfony-bootstrap that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2013

Update the security config with the latest Sf2.2 changes

760d624

The internal route has been removed, see symfony/symfony#6829 for details.

jakzal mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2015

[HttpKernel] Remove a duplicate test for the EsiFragmentRenderer #16281

Merged


		$reference->attributes['_controller'] = $reference->controller;

		$reference->query['path'] = http_build_query($reference->attributes, '', '&');

Uh oh!

Content renderer simplification #6829

Content renderer simplification #6829

Uh oh!

Conversation

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

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!

Tobion commented Jan 22, 2013

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!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

Tobion commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

Tobion commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

kriswallsmith commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

vicb commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

kriswallsmith commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

Tobion commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kriswallsmith commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

Tobion commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

kriswallsmith commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 22, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 23, 2013

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vicb commented Jan 23, 2013

Uh oh!

vicb commented Jan 23, 2013

Uh oh!

fabpot commented Jan 23, 2013