[DI] Always consider abstract getters as autowiring candidates #21602
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
34bf1bb to
e667e47
Compare
|
now with tests |
stof
reviewed
Feb 14, 2017
| @@ -478,7 +482,7 @@ private function createAutowiredDefinition(\ReflectionClass $typeHint) | |||
| $this->populateAvailableType($argumentId, $argumentDefinition); | |||
|
|
|||
| try { | |||
| $this->processValue($argumentDefinition, true); | |||
| $this->processValue($argumentDefinition, false); | |||
e667e47 to
2b55ed8
Compare
|
👍 |
dunglas
reviewed
Feb 14, 2017
| @@ -21,8 +21,11 @@ | |||
| * | |||
| * @author Kévin Dunglas <dunglas@gmail.com> | |||
| */ | |||
| class GetterOverriding | |||
| abstract class GetterOverriding | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe should you add another test instead of editing this one to be sure that both cases are covered?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
test case splitted
dunglas
reviewed
Feb 14, 2017
| @@ -159,6 +159,10 @@ private function getMethodsToAutowire(\ReflectionClass $reflectionClass, array $ | |||
| continue 2; | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| if ($reflectionMethod->isAbstract() && !$reflectionMethod->getNumberOfParameters()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't we check all conditions making it eligible to autowiring (return type...).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that won't provide anything more to me since those checks are going to happen anyway later on
|
👍 |
c984198 to
61ea411
Compare
61ea411 to
8f246bd
Compare
|
Thank you @nicolas-grekas. |
fabpot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 27, 2017
…ates (nicolas-grekas) This PR was merged into the 3.3-dev branch. Discussion ---------- [DI] Always consider abstract getters as autowiring candidates | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | master | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | yes (a missing part of getter autowiring really) | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | - | License | MIT | Doc PR | - When a definition is set to be autowired with no method explicitly configured, we already wire the constructor. We should also autowire abstract getters - with the same reasoning that makes us autowire the constructor: without concrete getters, the class is unusable. This just makes it usable again. Commits ------- 8f246bd [DI] Always consider abstract getters as autowiring candidates
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.
When a definition is set to be autowired with no method explicitly configured, we already wire the constructor.
We should also autowire abstract getters - with the same reasoning that makes us autowire the constructor: without concrete getters, the class is unusable. This just makes it usable again.