Make failed autowiring error messages more explicit #18766
Merged
Conversation
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
|
Thanks! |
|
No problem, which messages are better? Would you prefer me to update the ones in 2.8/3.0 to Ryan's messages or to change this PR to re-use the ones I defined in my previous PR? IMHO, I think the ones in this PR are better than the one from my first PR, so I'd think updating 2.8/3.0 would be better... |
|
Thank you @lemoinem. |
fabpot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 13, 2016
…nem) This PR was merged into the 3.1-dev branch. Discussion ---------- Make failed autowiring error messages more explicit | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | master | Bug fix? | no (better DX integration) | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | #18658 | License | MIT | Doc PR | N/A @nicolas-grekas This is a port from #18691 (which was for **2.8**). It looks like the original PR has been already mostly implemented in **master** by @weaverryan (in #17877). IMO, this PR is still improving two use cases: * In case a class cannot be autowired because no service can be found AND a service cannot be registered automatically, the error message now mentions both conditions (instead of simply saying no service has been found) * In case a class with no service attached to it can be automatically instantiated but cannot be autowired because of further problems, an exception mentioning this is now thrown instead of the lower level exception, making the situation easier to debug. (The lower level exception is still available through `getPrevious()`) Hence, I still think this PR provides useful additional DX features and is worth to be merged. Commits ------- 6894e03 Make failed autowiring error messages more explicit
|
@lemoinem please do what you think is best |
Merged
nicolas-grekas
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2016
…e future friendly (lemoinem) This PR was merged into the 2.8 branch. Discussion ---------- [DX][DependencyInjection] Make Autowiring exceptions more future friendly | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | 2.8, 3.0 | Bug fix? | no (forward compatibility) | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | yes | Fixed tickets | N/A | License | MIT | Doc PR | N/A This is a follow-up on #18766 (3.1, master) and #18691 (2.8, 3.0). This PR changes the exception messages to the ones introduced in #18766 and #17877. I also unified the tests so they are exactly the same. This way the error messages will be the same in 2.8 onward. Commits ------- 834f550 [DX][DI] Make Autowiring exceptions more future friendly
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.
@nicolas-grekas This is a port from #18691 (which was for 2.8).
It looks like the original PR has been already mostly implemented in master by @weaverryan (in #17877).
IMO, this PR is still improving two use cases:
getPrevious())Hence, I still think this PR provides useful additional DX features and is worth to be merged.