| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Commits
-------
bb138da [Security] Fix regression after rebase. Target url should be firewall dependent
eb19f2c [Security] Add note to CHANGELOG about refactored authentication failure/success handling [Security] Various CS + doc fixes [Security] Exception when authentication failure/success handlers do not return a response [Security] Add authors + fix docblock
f9d5606 [Security] Update AuthenticationFailureHandlerInterface docblock. Never return null
915704c [Security] Move default authentication failure handling strategy to seperate class [Security] Update configuration for changes regarding default failure handler [Security] Fixes + add AbstractFactory test for failure handler
c6aa392 [Security] Move default authentication success handling strategy to seperate class [Security] Update configuration for changes regarding default success handler [Security] Fix + add AbstractFactory test
Discussion
----------
[Security] Refactor authentication success handling
Bug fix: no
Feature addition: no
Backwards compatibility break: yes
Symfony2 tests pass: [](http://travis-ci.org/asm89/symfony)
License of the code: MIT
This PR extracts the default authentication success handling to its own class as discussed in #4553. In the end the PR will basically revert #3183 (as suggested by @schmittjoh) and fix point one of #838.
There are a few noticeable changes in this PR:
- This implementation changes the constructor signature of the `AbstractAuthentictionListener` and `UsernamePasswordFormAuthenticationListener` by making the `AuthenticationSuccessHandler` mandatory (BC break). If this WIP is approved I will refactor the failure handling logic too and then this will also move one place in the constructor
- This PR reverts the change of making the returning of a `Response` optional in the `AuthenticationSuccessHandlerInterface`. Developers can now extend the default behavior themselves
@schmittjoh Any suggestions? Or a +1 to do the failure logic too?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-06-17T23:53:07Z
+1 from me
@fabpot, what so you think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-06-19T08:15:48Z
Can you add a note in the CHANGELOG? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-06-19T10:22:20Z
I will, but I'll first do the same for the failure logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-21T08:03:14Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1671555) (merged 17c8f66f into 55c6df99).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-06-21T08:45:38Z
:+1: thank you @stof. I think this is good to go now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-21T08:50:28Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1671817) (merged 8982c769 into 55c6df99).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-06-21T14:23:58Z
@schmittjoh @fabpot The `LogoutListener` currently throws an exception when the successhandler doesn't return a `Response` ([link](https://github.com/symfony/symfony/blob/9e9519913d2c5e2bef96070bcb9106e1e389c3bd/src/Symfony/Component/Security/Http/Firewall/LogoutListener.php#L101)). Should this code check for this too?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by schmittjoh at 2012-06-21T14:26:49Z
Yes, this code was removed, but needs to be re-added here as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by travisbot at 2012-06-21T15:08:59Z
This pull request [passes](http://travis-ci.org/symfony/symfony/builds/1674437) (merged 5afa240d into 55c6df99).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-06-26T06:01:02Z
@fabpot Can you make a final decision on this? If you decide on point 3, this code can be merged. I agree with the arguments of @stof about the option handling and it 'only' being a BC break for direct users of the security component. I even think these direct users should be really careful anyway, since the behavior of the success and failurehandlers now change back to how they acted in 2.0.
Now I am thinking about it, can't the optional parameters of this class move to setters anyway? That will make it cleaner to extend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-06-28T10:29:50Z
ping @fabpot
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by fabpot at 2012-06-28T17:23:02Z
I'm ok with option 1 (the BC break). After doing the last changes, can you squash your commits before I merge? Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-07-06T21:59:54Z
@fabpot I rebased the PR, added the authors and also ported the fix that was done in 8ffaafa86741a03ecb2f91e3d67802f4c6baf36b to be contained in the default success handler. I also squashed all the CS and 'small blabla fix' commits. Is it ok now?
Edit: travisbot will probably say that the tests in this PR fail, but that is because current master fails on form things
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by asm89 at 2012-07-08T18:53:05Z
I rebased the PR, tests are green now: [](http://travis-ci.org/asm89/symfony).
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
return null
|
| |/ |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
clone in Symfony2 (now called EventDispatcher again)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The only missing part is ContainerAwareEventManager::addEventSubscriberService(),
because I'm not sure how to find out the class name of a service in the DIC.
Also, inline documentation of this code needs to be finished once it is accepted.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Doctrine's EventManager implementation has several advantages over the
EventDispatcher implementation of Symfony2. Therefore I suggest that we
use their implementation.
Advantages:
* Event Listeners are objects, not callbacks. These objects have handler
methods that have the same name as the event. This helps a lot when
reading the code and makes the code for adding an event listener shorter.
* You can create Event Subscribers, which are event listeners with an
additional getSubscribedEvents() method. The benefit here is that the
code that registers the subscriber doesn't need to know about its
implementation.
* All events are defined in static Events classes, so users of IDEs benefit
of code completion
* The communication between the dispatching class of an event and all
listeners is done through a subclass of EventArgs. This subclass can be
tailored to the type of event. A constructor, setters and getters can be
implemented that verify the validity of the data set into the object.
See examples below.
* Because each event type corresponds to an EventArgs implementation,
developers of event listeners can look up the available EventArgs methods
and benefit of code completion.
* EventArgs::stopPropagation() is more flexible and (IMO) clearer to use
than notifyUntil(). Also, it is a concept that is also used in other
event implementations
Before:
class EventListener
{
public function handle(EventInterface $event, $data) { ... }
}
$dispatcher->connect('core.request', array($listener, 'handle'));
$dispatcher->notify('core.request', new Event(...));
After (with listeners):
final class Events
{
const onCoreRequest = 'onCoreRequest';
}
class EventListener
{
public function onCoreRequest(RequestEventArgs $eventArgs) { ... }
}
$evm->addEventListener(Events::onCoreRequest, $listener);
$evm->dispatchEvent(Events::onCoreRequest, new RequestEventArgs(...));
After (with subscribers):
class EventSubscriber
{
public function onCoreRequest(RequestEventArgs $eventArgs) { ... }
public function getSubscribedEvents()
{
return Events::onCoreRequest;
}
}
$evm->addEventSubscriber($subscriber);
$evm->dispatchEvent(Events::onCoreRequest, new RequestEventArgs(...));
|
| |
|
|
| |
confidential information
|
| | |
|
|
|
Symfony\Component\Security -> Symfony\Component\Security\Core
Symfony\Component\Security\Acl remains unchanged
Symfony\Component\HttpKernel\Security -> Symfony\Component\Security\Http
|
