[5.4] Feature/Bug: Allow ImplicitRouteBinding to match camelized method parameter names

[ralphschindler]

Problem:

Route::resource('foo-bar', 'FooBarController')

will not route implicitly bound model parameters to

<?php
namespace App\Http\Controllers;

use App\Models\FooBar;

class FooBarController extends Controller
{
    public function show(FooBar $fooBar)
    {
        // ...
    }
    // ...
}

since ImplicitRouteBinding will not match the auto-generated foo_bar resource parameter name to the controller method name $fooBar.

The provided PR ensures this will work in a non-breaking way (original explicit matching remains priority matching, and only in the case of non-matching exact will the snake_case version of a method name be attempted to be matched.

(I feel this could qualify as a bug since my expectation is that camelized method parameter naming should work and Route::resource() doesn't allow for hinting a proper parameter name.)

[taylorotwell]

I agree this should be fixed. Will look this over, thanks.

[ralphschindler]

Thanks @taylorotwell. As I thought through the problem, this felt like the most appropriate area to solve the problem, to me at the time.

Should you require any discussion on it, I am available inside #internals & #laravel5 in larachat.

[lagbox]

What do you mean by "Route::resource() doesn't allow for hinting a proper parameter name"?
Im not sure why we would expect 'foo_bar' to match 'fooBar'.

[lagbox]

Not that someone should have been doing this, but this is broken now:
tags/{tag_id} => function (SomeModel $tagId, Tag $tag_id)
Will not resolve now, but before you would have had a new instance of SomeModel as $tagId and $tag_id would be the actual Tag. Its possible someone could be using dep injection to get an instance of a model.

No one is expecting a binding match when the parameter names aren't an exact match. Contrived example or not, what was allowed before and worked, doesn't now.

I'm just a worrier :-).