Skip to content

[1.x] fix(core): change caching logic for validation attributes #4216

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

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: 1.x
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

DavideIadeluca
Copy link
Contributor

@DavideIadeluca DavideIadeluca commented May 23, 2025

Fixes #0000
The caching logic of the previous solution to make validation attributes translatable was flawed.

  • getAttributeNames() always stored the first set of attribute names it built under the single key
    core.validation.extension_id_class_names
  • Every later validator – regardless of its own rules, extension ID or the current locale – hit that same key and therefore received the wrong map of attribute names

Changes proposed in this pull request:

  • change caching logic for validation attributes
  • deprecate now unused const

A cache key might now look like this:

  • cacheKey":"core.validation.attributes.de.Flarum\\Discussion\\DiscussionValidator
  • core.validation.attributes.de.Flarum\\Post\\PostValidator

Reviewers should focus on:
I tried to get a test running which covers this but had crazy difficulties changing the forum lang in the first place

Screenshot

Necessity

  • Has the problem that is being solved here been clearly explained?
  • If applicable, have various options for solving this problem been considered?
  • For core PRs, does this need to be in core, or could it be in an extension?
  • Are we willing to maintain this for years / potentially forever?

Confirmed

  • Frontend changes: tested on a local Flarum installation.
  • Backend changes: tests are green (run composer test).
  • Core developer confirmed locally this works as intended.
  • Tests have been added, or are not appropriate here.

Required changes:

  • Related documentation PR: (Remove if irrelevant)

I guess we could get away with just removing it, but as there is a remote chance a third party implementation is already relying on it I wouldn't remove it right now..
@DavideIadeluca DavideIadeluca marked this pull request as ready for review May 23, 2025 15:23
@DavideIadeluca DavideIadeluca requested a review from a team as a code owner May 23, 2025 15:23
Changing this also adds support for the `UserValidator` which defines `getRules()` itself
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant