[5.8] Fix recursive replacements in Str::replaceArray()#28338
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
I should review this code, but are you sure it works when the first replacement doesn't occur at the very beginning? |
Contributor
|
… or when the parts between the replacements are different. If there is actually such breakage, the tests would have to be improved as well ;) |
Contributor
|
Just in case, refs #12259, though the previous code had the same problem. |
Contributor
Author
|
@vlakoff Yes, these cases work. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Str::replaceArray()recursively replaces the search value if it appears in the replacements:Laravel uses the method in query exceptions to replace the
?placeholders with the actual bindings. This causes incorrect results if a binding contains a?.We can fix it splitting the string and gluing it back together.
Theoretically, this could be a breaking change for users who are relying on recursive replacements. But I don't a see case where you would want this behavior.
Fixes #28245.