On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:13 PM Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Le mer. 30 sept. 2020 à 12:45, Nikita Popov <nikita....@gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:57 PM Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 3:45 PM Larry Garfield <la...@garfieldtech.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 4:35 PM Benjamin Morel <
>> > benjamin.mo...@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 15:17, Nicolas Grekas <
>> > > nicolas.grekas+...@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I assume the 80% case is properties, because attributes did not
>> have
>> > > > >>> docblock annotations yet, that means this use-case isn't even
>> > > possible at
>> > > > >>> the moment. Yet annotations on properties are widespread
>> (Doctrine
>> > > ORM,
>> > > > >>> symfony validator, ...).
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'm 100% with Benjamin here, this is what will be the most
>> useful to
>> > > me
>> > > > >> also.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion against yours, I'm just
>> > > > > pointing out the fact that even though it might be useful, it
>> might
>> > > also be
>> > > > > confusing and create yet another WTF moment in PHP for developers.
>> > > Sure, it
>> > > > > might make more sense to apply to the property. Sure, so far
>> > > annotations
>> > > > > weren't possible on parameters. But is that obvious to the average
>> > > > > developer writing the attribute? A few years down the road, DI
>> > > containers
>> > > > > may have broad support for annotating parameters for injection.
>> Will
>> > it
>> > > > > still be obvious then that an attribute on a promoted property
>> > applies
>> > > to
>> > > > > the property only?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I do agree that applying the attribute to both the property and
>> the
>> > > > > parameter will probably never be useful, though. So, throwing an
>> > > exception
>> > > > > and forcing the de-sugaring feels like the most sensible thing to
>> do
>> > > for me
>> > > > > in this case!
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I haven't checked if this is possible in the code doing the
>> > "desugering",
>> > > > but what if we had an attribute on the constructor that could
>> specify
>> > > where
>> > > > the attributes should apply to?
>> > > >
>> > > > #[AttributePromotion(Attribute::TARGET_PROPERTY)]
>> > > > public function __construct(#[Foo] public string $bar) {}
>> > > >
>> > > > Then we could apply it to both by default, which is what is probably
>> > the
>> > > > expected approach, and users could change it to apply only to
>> > properties,
>> > > > which is what is the use-case that makes most sense.
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > — Benjamin
>> > >
>> > > From a user experience POV, I'd almost expect the opposite.
>> > >
>> > > If I mark the attribute as being for properties, it gets applied to
>> the
>> > > property.
>> > >
>> > > If I mark the attribute as being for parameters, it gets applied to
>> the
>> > > parameter.
>> > >
>> > > If I mark it for both, or don't restrict it at all, it applies to
>> both.
>> > >
>> > > That may not be how the logic is currently implemented but that's
>> what as
>> > > a user I'd find least-surprising.
>> > >
>> >
>> > The problem with this approach is that it would require autoloading the
>> > attributes when they are assigned to either the internal property or
>> > parameter struct, but we have the design goal *not* to trigger
>> autoloading
>> > unless newInstance() or getArguments() is called. What you could do in
>> > userland code is handle this case yourself and never newInstance()
>> > attributes that don't apply to the right "thing" (parameter vs
>> property).
>> > but that would defer the problem to userland with some annoying piece of
>> > code.
>> >
>>
>> So, as there seems to be resistance to applying the attribute to
>> properties
>> only I only see a couple of options:
>>
>> 1. Forbid combining attributes and promotion.
>>
>
> That'd be quite deceptive to me.
>
>
>
>> 2. Relax attribute validation for this case, as implemented in
>> https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/6244. I think if we otherwise stick
>> to
>> the current behavior, this is what we should do to avoid false-positive
>> errors.
>>
>
> This makes a lot of sense actually!
> Just to be sure, "ignore the error" means that attributes that target
> properties would be applied only to the property, and attributes that
> target params only to the param, isn't it? Or does it mean that they would
> still be applied to both, but not error would be raised?
>
Unfortunately they would still be applied to both, but without error. As
Benjamin mentioned before, there's no way to prevent applying them to both
without loading the attribute definition and checking the targets on it.
Nikita
