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
[FrameworkBundle] fixed requirement of the _controller placeholder for the proxy route (closes #6783) #6791
Conversation
fabpot
commented
Jan 18, 2013
Q | A |
---|---|
Bug fix? | yes |
New feature? | no |
BC breaks? | no |
Deprecations? | no |
Tests pass? | yes |
Fixed tickets | #6783 |
License | MIT |
Doc PR | n/a |
What about a UT ? |
@@ -5,4 +5,5 @@ | |||
xsi:schemaLocation="http://symfony.com/schema/routing http://symfony.com/schema/routing/routing-1.0.xsd"> | |||
|
|||
<route id="_proxy" pattern="/_proxy/{_controller}.{_format}" /> | |||
<requirement key="_controller">.+?</requirement> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think this fixes #6783 because AFAIK it would match _controller = foo; _format = bar.service:blah.format
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So either format matches eagerly then controller could not include a dot. Or controller matches eagerly, then format could not contain a dot.
and the syntax is wrong also ! |
same problem the sonata admin bundle use
rewrite to
throws
with the requirement fix it throws
|
ok, I've updated the patch. There is now a static segment ( While thinking about this, there is another option, which might be even better: removing the need for the proxy route altogether and check for a defined path like |
+1 for me the patch works i will open a PR for sonata doctrine orm bundle
|
When the proxy route is nessesary we should add a note into the upgrade guide. +1 for less complexesy |
There is one issue with removing the proxy route: when generating a proxy URL, we need a Request instance, which is not always the case. I'm going to submit another PR to "fix" that first. |
Paul leaves this body :) |
@@ -4,5 +4,5 @@ | |||
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" | |||
xsi:schemaLocation="http://symfony.com/schema/routing http://symfony.com/schema/routing/routing-1.0.xsd"> | |||
|
|||
<route id="_proxy" pattern="/_proxy/{_controller}.{_format}" /> | |||
<route id="_proxy" pattern="/_proxy/{_controller}/for.{_format}" /> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO this would be nicer: /_proxy/{_controller}/{_format}
I don't think removing the proxy route is good. That's the purpose of the routing system to handle generating and matching. Now if you do it manually it will probably show a bad approach to people to handle such stuff. |
…r the proxy route (closes symfony#6783) A controller name can be a service and service names can contain dots.
I've again changed the route pattern to avoid any possible problems (even if a controller contains a |
Can a controller contain |
AFAIK yes, at least I used Namespace/SubController more then once... |
This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- cdf1d72 [FrameworkBundle] fixed requirement of the _controller palceholder for the proxy route (closes #6783) Discussion ---------- [FrameworkBundle] fixed requirement of the _controller palceholder for the proxy route (closes #6783) | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | yes | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | #6783 | License | MIT | Doc PR | n/a --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-18T10:23:06Z What about a UT ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-18T11:28:41Z and the syntax is wrong also ! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by gimler at 2013-01-21T19:59:57Z same problem the sonata admin bundle use ``` {% render 'sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction' %} ``` rewrite to ``` {% render controller('sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction') %} ``` throws ``` An exception has been thrown during the rendering of a template ("Parameter "_controller" for route "_proxy" must match "[^/\.]++" ("sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction" given) to generate a corresponding URL.") in "SonataAdminBundle:CRUD:edit.html.twig". ``` with the requirement fix it throws ``` An exception has been thrown during the rendering of a template ("Unable to parse the controller name "sonata".") in "SonataAdminBundle:CRUD:edit.html.twig". ``` --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T06:40:14Z ok, I've updated the patch. There is now a static segment (`/for`) between the controller and the format, which should fix the problem. While thinking about this, there is another option, which might be even better: removing the need for the proxy route altogether and check for a defined path like `/_proxy`. It would remove the dependency on a Url Generator in the rendering strategy, and would not make the router proxy listener any more complex. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by gimler at 2013-01-22T07:20:43Z +1 for me the patch works i will open a PR for sonata doctrine orm bundle ``` {% render controller('sonata.admin.controller.admin:getShortObjectDescriptionAction', {}, { 'code': sonata_admin.field_description.associationadmin.code, 'objectId': sonata_admin.field_description.associationadmin.id(sonata_admin.value), 'uniqid': sonata_admin.field_description.associationadmin.uniqid }) ``` --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by gimler at 2013-01-22T07:22:21Z When the proxy route is nessesary we should add a note into the upgrade guide. +1 for less complexesy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T08:02:12Z There is one issue with removing the proxy route: when generating a proxy URL, we need a Request instance, which is not always the case. I'm going to submit another PR to "fix" that first. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-22T08:17:51Z > It would remove the dependency Paul leaves this body :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T08:53:52Z I don't think removing the proxy route is good. That's the purpose of the routing system to handle generating and matching. Now if you do it manually it will probably show a bad approach to people to handle such stuff. Also people cannot see what routes are defined explicitly and use tools like `router:debug`. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T09:28:55Z @Tobion: see #6829 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T09:57:57Z I've again changed the route pattern to avoid any possible problems (even if a controller contains a `/`). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T10:16:03Z Can a controller contain `/`? It's neither a valid service nor a valid class name or? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by mvrhov at 2013-01-22T10:40:26Z AFAIK yes, at least I used Namespace/SubController more then once...
@mvrhov the namespace separator in PHP is |
@stof |
This PR was merged into the master branch. Commits ------- 23f5145 renamed proxy to router_proxy e5135f6 [HttpKernel] renamed path to _path to avoid collision 3193a90 made the proxy path configurable ad82893 removed the need for a proxy route for rendering strategies b9f0e17 [HttpKernel] made the Request required when using rendering strategies Discussion ---------- Content renderer simplification | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | n/a | License | MIT | Doc PR | symfony/symfony-docs#2179 Todo: - [x] submit a PR for documentation update The first commit makes the Request required when dealing with rendering strategies (see the commit why this was a bad idea to make it optional in the first place). The second commit removes the need for a proxy route and replaces it with the same system we have in the security component. The third commit makes the proxy path configurable (default to `/_proxy`). This PR has been triggered by a discussion on #6791. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T09:49:37Z My opinion: * The first commit should be merged. * For the second and third one, I don't have a strong opinion. One of the benefits that the content renderer and its strategies do not rely on the Routing component anymore. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T15:22:47Z Any comments? ping @Tobion @vicb --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T16:07:15Z Shouldn't the class name be like `SubRequestRenderingStrategyInterface` because currently it does not say anything about what is rendered. `RenderingStrategyInterface` makes it look like it's for rendering a normal master request, i.e. templating. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T16:19:26Z @Tobion: This was actually the first name I had but I found it too long. It is indeed rendering a normal request, but only in the context of a master request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T16:23:25Z I found the correct term for what this is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion So it should probably be like `Symfony/Component/HttpKernel/Transclusion/TransclusionInterface` or `TransclusionStrategyInterface`. So the term `rendering` is misleading as it does not really render the subrequest, but only prints a reference to the subrequest. The rendering is done by ESI processor or hinclude etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T16:37:00Z The `RenderingStrategyInterface` does render a request and returns a Response. One of the strategy consist of returning an ESI tag, but this is still a Response. I don't like introducing the `Transclusion` word as (at least for me) it does not evoke anything. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T16:46:10Z Also `DefaultRenderingStrategy` is not saying anything. What is default? It should express that it directly includes the resource in the other (term `integrate` comes to my mind). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T17:23:21Z How about `InlineRenderingStrategy`? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-22T17:25:17Z @Tobion @kriswallsmith 👍 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T17:26:17Z Also, `SubRequestStrategyInterface` may be more apparent (`InlineSubRequestStrategy`, `EsiSubRequestStrategy`…) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T18:10:19Z `SubRequestStrategyInterface` is missing the verb somehow. A strategy for what? @kriswallsmith as an English native speaker, is transclusion also not convenient for you? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T18:11:41Z Thanks for all your suggestions, I appreciate them, but what about the whole approach? Do you agree that it is better than the current one? I'd like to avoid the bikeshedding if the approach is not better. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T18:22:47Z :+1: for removing the router dependency. @Tobion perhaps request is the verb there? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Tobion at 2013-01-22T19:51:20Z I'm also fine with making it independent from the routing component because routing is about making routes configurable with placeholders etc. for nice URLs. But this is not needed for a proxy feature. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by kriswallsmith at 2013-01-22T20:13:48Z @fabpot Do you anticipate ever wanting a sub request to be handled differently based on HTTP method? Just thinking of possible reasons to continue using the routing component here… --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-22T20:40:06Z No, sub-requests only make sense for GET requests. In fact, we even enforce that in HttpContentRenderer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T06:51:54Z I'm not going to discuss names further in the context of this PR as it has already been discussed in the initial PR that introduced these classes and because this PR does not change anything to the meaning of these classes. If you think the names can be better, feel free to open a ticket and discuss names there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T07:48:36Z If I understand correctly, both hsi and esi will generate path starting with "/_proxy", isn't it a problem wrt access_control ? should it be possible to configure a per strategy path ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T07:56:11Z @vicb: Yes, all strategies use the `/_proxy` path when the developer uses a controller reference. But the router proxy takes care of securing the route, so there is no need to do it yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T08:07:36Z @fabpot that's smart, I've missed it. Some questions though (they should be answered by UT I think - and might already have been, I have not checked) - Isn't there a pb with urlencoding in the listener ? - Would the listener work with fragments (`#...') ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T08:31:37Z Some more points: - Should we validate that the router_proxy is enabled when esi are enabled (early failure ?) - Should we be able to enable each strategy individually (ie no need to expose the signer when hsi are not used) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T09:58:45Z Enabling the router proxy when using ESI si not required. The router proxy is "only" required when you use the `controller` Twig function (or the equivalent in PHP -> `ControllerReference`). But we can probably throw an exception in the `ControllerReference` constructor if the proxy is not enabled. Enabling each strategy individually is indeed a good idea (and that's more a general question as we could do the same for the translator loaders, or the service container loaders). Let's create another issue on this global topic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by vicb at 2013-01-23T10:10:29Z > But we can probably throw an exception in the ControllerReference constructor if the proxy is not enabled. It should probably be in a wrapper class then ? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- by fabpot at 2013-01-23T12:45:36Z The listener does not need to work with fragments as URLs as they are never part of the generated URL.
hey.. i am on symfony 2.2 beta1. When I try to render a controller from a template i got the exception: An exception has been thrown during the rendering of a template ("No route found for "GET /_proxy"") in AnchorbrandsMessageBundle:Message:Show/show.html.twig at line 19. It worked before the proxy.xml was removed |
@caramba13337 in 2.2-beta1, the controller syntax was not working at all. The PR has been merged after that for beta2 |
@stof i ve set symfony requirement to 2.2* in my composer.json so what is the correct one to get the fixed vendors? |
I have the same exception with propel bundle and symfony 2.2 beta 2 :
|
Charles: put router_proxy: { path: /_proxy } to the framework section 2013/1/24 Charles SANQUER notifications@github.com
|
Thx @caramba1337. Nice to see the master branch documentation has been updated. |
I'm new to Symfony. I have 2.2.1 and when using the DB profiler (with Propel) I get the error: An exception has been thrown during the rendering of a template ("No route found for "GET Panel:configuration"") in PropelBundle:Collector:propel.html.twig at line 107. So I added to my config.yml, framework section: Now I get: |
@chrisnoden it is |
Old -> fragments: ~ Either way, it doesn't fix the propel db profiler. I still get the Twig_Error_Runtime and the previously mentioned message. |
@chrisnoden are you using the latest PropelBundle ? |