Skip to content
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

replication = false also enter here and we obtain a error, parameters… #381

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Belibov
Copy link

@Belibov Belibov commented Oct 4, 2016

… are array, but warning like this is returned:

Warning: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, no array or string given in file /var/www/dan/rec/vendor/predis/predis/src/Client.php:176

… are array, but warning like this is returned:

Warning: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, no array or string given in file /var/www/dan/rec/vendor/predis/predis/src/Client.php:176
nrk added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 5, 2020
While "replication" do accept values evaluating to TRUE, the same cannot
be said for values evaluating to FALSE. TRUE is used to tell the client
that we want replication handled using the default backend for unmanaged
replication setups. For using redis-sentinel the "sentinel" string value
must be passed.

Setting "replication" to FALSE led to a failure (and a PHP warning) on
client initialization because this condition was not handled properly.
Being able to do so would not make sense anyway: when the client does
not need to be set up to rely on replication, users simply have to omit
the option. Furthermore, users must always specify either "replication"
or "cluster" and not both with one of them set to FALSE.

Unfortunately options for aggregate connections in Predis v1.1 are a bit
of a mess, they did not scale well with the addition of new features and
are also quite inconsistent (e.g. "cluster" does not accept TRUE).

This has been largely fixed in Predis v2.0-dev but required implementing
a few breaking changes. It also means that this change does not need to
be ported to the main branch.

Addresses #381 using a different approach.
@nrk nrk added the bug label Sep 5, 2020
@nrk
Copy link
Contributor

nrk commented Sep 5, 2020

Fixed in ca468b7 (albeit with a different approach), will be shipped in v1.1.5. Thank you.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants