-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 420
[make:entity] Maker modifies vendor files if FQCN covers up local alias #1566
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
Comments
Hmm ya, Maker shouldn't have anything todo with the
|
I think it should be checked if an alias exists as FQCN as well as in the mapping files (which are not read, afaik, since it's not possible to know what kind of setup people have?) and then provide a list of possible targets for classes, instead of picking one? I think it should be possible to read Doctrine's ORM configuration after they've been processed, since the container has been built during maker's runtime, so maybe validate against that? I've noticed a similar, but unrelated issue, as maker's config is very basic. It should be left in place for the time being, but I believe something like ORM should rely on the underlying framework configuration first (since, for example, we have multiple ORM mappings and it's a pain to switch maker between them), which would also allow for better validation in these types of cases. |
Any idea if/when this will get looked at? I could look into it myself but it'll prolly take me way longer to familiarize myself with exactly what has to be done |
Using 1.59.1 the following interaction creates a funny edit in the vendor directory.
I earlier created entities under our regular doctrine mapping, with MangoPay as the preceding namespace.
I then named the entity Wallet, so a class under
App/Common/Entity/MangoPay/Wallet
exists.The doctrine mapping for this section is as following:
The following interaction then occurs.
Obviously, I am expecting it to modify my entity, which is within the doctrine mapping.
Using the full namespace the edit is performed as expected.
In this scenario it should be at least partially checked, and then possibly asked which class you're exactly referring to. The same might be the case when a FQCN name might cover up a local one through relations, as I believe I've seen something like this already.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: