Removing some extra details from #6444 #6600
Conversation
|
|
||
| choice_value | ||
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ||
| In the ``EntityType``, this defaults to the ``id`` of the entity, if it can |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A question: does "the id of the entity" refer explicitly to a property called id or does it refer to the primary key value, whatever the property is called (and it works even for composite primary keys)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it refers to the PK, but I believe none of this works the same with composite PK's, but I'm not sure exactly what happens on that case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It works at the moment the identifier is in a single column (any PK or association), see https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/master/src/Symfony/Bridge/Doctrine/Form/ChoiceList/IdReader.php#L112 for more details.
|
👍 |
|
|
||
| If the id cannot be read, for BC, the component checks if the class implements | ||
| ``__toString()`` and will use an incremental integer otherwise. | ||
| In the ``EntityType``, this is overridden to use the ``id`` by default. When the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @weaverryan, I agree with those steps. However this information in choice_name is quite important and should remain in a "note" or "caution" block IMHO.
Because as you said in your description, using this option prevents the optimization when loading entities.
Also, saying that the __toString method or integers (as strings) should be kept since in fact, selecting choices (empty_data, API, ...) really depends on this setting.
Note that there is some work in progress (and planned to be) where feedbacks would be very welcome: #6265 and #6446.
Besides that 👍
|
Ping @weaverryan Status: needs work |
This PR was merged into the 2.7 branch. Discussion ---------- Removing some extra details from #6444 See #6444 - I wanted to accomplish 2 things: 1) Ideally remove needing to duplicate the option - i.e. *try* to re-use the existing `.inc` file, as long as things remain clear. Also, the original `.inc` actually explain what the point of the option is. 2) Removing some extra low-level details that I'm not sure are understandable. The only thing I wasn't sure about was related to `choice_values`. If I'm using an API, and I want the user to be able to submit some string (e.g. the `username` for a User instead of the id), is this possible by setting this to `username`? Or will that mess up how the entities are queried? Commits ------- 2336e88 Trying to remove some duplication and some extra details
See #6444 - I wanted to accomplish 2 things:
Ideally remove needing to duplicate the option - i.e. try to re-use the existing
.incfile, as long as things remain clear. Also, the original.incactually explain what the point of the option is.Removing some extra low-level details that I'm not sure are understandable.
The only thing I wasn't sure about was related to
choice_values. If I'm using an API, and I want the user to be able to submit some string (e.g. theusernamefor a User instead of the id), is this possible by setting this tousername? Or will that mess up how the entities are queried?