Zend Framework

wrong stacking of plugins.

Details

  • Type: Improvement Improvement
  • Status: Postponed Postponed
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Unresolved
  • Affects Version/s: 1.0.2
  • Fix Version/s: Next Major Release
  • Component/s: Zend_Controller
  • Labels:
    None
  • Fix Version Priority:
    Should Have

Description

It's description of Matthew Weier O'Phinney:
"Let's say you have 3 plugins, one registered with no stackIndex, one
with a stackIndex of 99, and another with one of 50. If you register
another, it will get a stackIndex of 3, when it should get a stackIndex
of 1. "

Zend_Controller_Plugin_Broker
public function registerPlugin(Zend_Controller_Plugin_Abstract $plugin, $stackIndex = null)
    {
        //code
        } else {
            $stackIndex = count($this->_plugins); // why?
            while (isset($this->_plugins[$stackIndex])) {
                ++$stackIndex;
            }
            $this->_plugins[$stackIndex] = $plugin;
        }
        //code
    }

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Matthew Weier O'Phinney added a comment -

Scheduling for 1.0.3

Show
Matthew Weier O'Phinney added a comment - Scheduling for 1.0.3
Hide
Permalink
Matthew Weier O'Phinney added a comment -

Postponing to 1.1.0. Right now, I can't figure out a way to do stack ordering that's (a) easily user manipulable (b) maintains reasonable internal index order when indices are automatically generated, and (c) retains backwards compatibility. When I can sit down with the code and ensure (c) in particular can be met, while meeting (a) and (b), we can proceed – and that will need to wait for 1.1.0.

Show
Matthew Weier O'Phinney added a comment - Postponing to 1.1.0. Right now, I can't figure out a way to do stack ordering that's (a) easily user manipulable (b) maintains reasonable internal index order when indices are automatically generated, and (c) retains backwards compatibility. When I can sit down with the code and ensure (c) in particular can be met, while meeting (a) and (b), we can proceed – and that will need to wait for 1.1.0.
Hide
Permalink
Jordan Ryan Moore added a comment -

Attaching patch that fixes this bug.

Show
Jordan Ryan Moore added a comment - Attaching patch that fixes this bug.
Hide
Permalink
Wil Sinclair added a comment -

This doesn't appear to have been fixed in 1.5.0. Please update if this is not correct.

Show
Wil Sinclair added a comment - This doesn't appear to have been fixed in 1.5.0. Please update if this is not correct.
Hide
Permalink
Ralph Schindler added a comment -

Updating project management info.

Show
Ralph Schindler added a comment - Updating project management info.
Hide
Permalink
Matthew Weier O'Phinney added a comment -

Assigning to Ralph.

Show
Matthew Weier O'Phinney added a comment - Assigning to Ralph.
Hide
Permalink
Ralph Schindler added a comment -

This actually works very similar to how php would increment stack index. Notice:

~/tmp$ cat php-array-indexes.php 
<?php

$stack = array();
$stack[-99] = 'foo';
$stack[-50] = 'bar';
$stack[] = 'baz';

var_dump($stack);

$stack[50] = 'bar2';
$stack[] = 'baz2';

var_dump($stack);
~/tmp$ php php-array-indexes.php 
array(3) {
  [-99]=>
  string(3) "foo"
  [-50]=>
  string(3) "bar"
  [0]=>
  string(3) "baz"
}
array(5) {
  [-99]=>
  string(3) "foo"
  [-50]=>
  string(3) "bar"
  [0]=>
  string(3) "baz"
  [50]=>
  string(4) "bar2"
  [51]=>
  string(4) "baz2"
}

In our case, the next number represents both the next available positive index AS WELL as the number (if none was provided) of the plugin that was pushed onto the stack. I think this behavior is correct. On the other hand, i think the actual index and top/bottom of the stack might need to be re-evaluated.

Show
Ralph Schindler added a comment - This actually works very similar to how php would increment stack index. Notice: 
~/tmp$ cat php-array-indexes.php 
<?php

$stack = array();
$stack[-99] = 'foo';
$stack[-50] = 'bar';
$stack[] = 'baz';

var_dump($stack);

$stack[50] = 'bar2';
$stack[] = 'baz2';

var_dump($stack);
~/tmp$ php php-array-indexes.php 
array(3) {
  [-99]=>
  string(3) "foo"
  [-50]=>
  string(3) "bar"
  [0]=>
  string(3) "baz"
}
array(5) {
  [-99]=>
  string(3) "foo"
  [-50]=>
  string(3) "bar"
  [0]=>
  string(3) "baz"
  [50]=>
  string(4) "bar2"
  [51]=>
  string(4) "baz2"
}
In our case, the next number represents both the next available positive index AS WELL as the number (if none was provided) of the plugin that was pushed onto the stack. I think this behavior is correct. On the other hand, i think the actual index and top/bottom of the stack might need to be re-evaluated.

People

Vote (0)
Watch (2)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:

Time Tracking

Estimated:
4h
Original Estimate - 4 hours
Remaining:
4h
Remaining Estimate - 4 hours
Logged:
Not Specified
Time Spent - Not Specified
Atlassian JIRA (v4.4.3#663-r165197) | Report a problem
Powered by a free Atlassian JIRA open source license for Zend Framework. Try JIRA - bug tracking software for your team.