-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.2k
Document typed arrays in optionsresolver #6048
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
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -367,6 +367,43 @@ to add additional allowed types without erasing the ones already set. | |
the values to be given as an array mapping option names to allowed types: | ||
``$resolver->setAllowedTypes(array('port' => array('null', 'int')));`` | ||
|
||
You can specify an array of a specific type as an allowed option. The expected type is | ||
validated in the same way as before (``is_<type>()`` or an ``instanceof`` check). | ||
Only for an array, this is done recursively. If you expect an option to be an array of | ||
``DateTime`` instances or a numeric array, you can specify this as follows:: | ||
|
||
// ... | ||
class Mailer | ||
{ | ||
// ... | ||
public function configureOptions(OptionsResolver $resolver) | ||
{ | ||
// ... | ||
$resolver->setAllowedTypes('dates', 'DateTime[]'); | ||
$resolver->setAllowedTypes('ports', 'int[]'); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
Because the OptionsResolver will validate typed arrays recursively, it is possible to | ||
resolve multi-dimensional arrays, too:: | ||
|
||
// ... | ||
class Mailer | ||
{ | ||
// ... | ||
public function configureOptions(OptionsResolver $resolver) | ||
{ | ||
// ... | ||
//allowed type is a 2D array of string values | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. would add a space between |
||
$resolver->setAllowedTypes('hosts', 'string[][]'); | ||
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
.. versionadded:: 3.1 | ||
Before Symfony 3.1, the allowed types had to be scalar values, qualified classes | ||
or interfaces. The only way to ensure the values of an array were of the right type | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. the last sentence sounds weird |
||
was to use a normalizer. | ||
|
||
Value Validation | ||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ||
|
||
|
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.
Are those implementation details needed in the doc ? :/
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.
@ogizanagi Well the existing documentation does mention the validation is done using the
is_<type>
functions, but we could leave it out here as an "implied implementation detail" or something.