[PropertyAccess] Custom methods on property accesses #6400
Conversation
lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch 4 times, most recently from c943984 to 8763757 Compare 
| Guys, just a quick question. I was expecting a plataformsh automatic documentation deploy of this PR but found none. Has the feature been discontinued or am I just doing something wrong? |
| This seems to be a general issue with Platform.sh. @GuGuss can you help us here (this seems to affect all recent pull requests)? |
| <Symfony\\Component\\PropertyAccess\\PropertyAccessorBuilder::setMetadataFactory>` | ||
| see `Enable other Features`_. | ||
| | ||
| There are four method calls that can be overriden: `getter`, `setter`, `adder` and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor syntax issue: in Markdown you can use this:
`getter`, `setter`, `adder` and `remover` but in RST you must use double backticks:
``getter``, ``setter``, ``adder`` and ``remover`` 
| @lrlopez this is truly a useful feature. I hope it's included in Symfony soon! Thank you also for providing the docs for the feature. |
| @javiereguiluz Thank you very much for the review! |
lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch 3 times, most recently from ba1c468 to 3aa2e31 Compare | All comments have been addressed |
lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch 2 times, most recently from 7375b21 to cd683e7 Compare lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch from cd683e7 to 88622d5 Compare | Docs ready for final review! |
lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch from 88622d5 to 8b788ba Compare 
lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch from 8b788ba to 17a6fdd Compare | Docs have been rebased to latest master so no conflicts arise anymore. By the way, related PR are now symfony/symfony#22190 and symfony/symfony#22191 |
| Custom method calls and virtual properties in a class | ||
| ----------------------------------------------------- | ||
| | ||
| Sometimes you may not want the component to guess which method has to be called |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs a .. versionadded:: directive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should I target 3.3 or 3.4? I think is 3.4, but I'd like to be sure
components/property_access.rst Outdated
| .. code-block:: php-annotations | ||
| // ... | ||
| use Symfony\Component\PropertyAccess\Annotation\Property; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It does make sense to name the annotation class PropertyAccess but maybe it is worth an alias, wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmmm... I've been thinking all the day around about renaming the annotation class to Accessor. Do you think is better?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe, but it would not be that consistent with the other, so what about:
/** * @PropertyAcessor(...) */ private $property; /** * @GetterAccessor(...) */ public function propertyState() { // ... } /** * @SetterAccessor(...) */ public function updateProperty() { // ... } /** * @AdderAccessor(...) */ public function increaseProperty(Arg $arg) { // ... } /** * @RemoverAccessor(...) */ public function decreaseProperty(Arg $arg) { // ... }WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, let's do this way then! We can change later them if we don't like the results...
components/property_access.rst Outdated
| // Notice that there is no real "total" property | ||
| /** | ||
| * @PropertyGetter(property="total") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@HeahDude, we could rename this annotation to just Getter and do the same to the others (Setter, Adder and Remover). Do you agree?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems I've answered above at the same time :). I don't know what's best though.
weaverryan changed the title lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch from f4d4ff2 to 1abbb44 Compare 
lrlopez force-pushed the property_access_docs branch from 1abbb44 to 5f4e4b6 Compare | Although it may not be needed, I've squashed the commits. |
javiereguiluz changed the title 
| Code PR closed |
8 participants
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.