ReflectionProperty::setValue() and ReflectionProperty::setAccessible()

17 years ago by Sebastian Bergmann — view source — reply

unread

Currently ReflectionProperty::setValue() ignores the setting made by
ReflectionProperty::setAccessible(). Is this intentional or was it just
forgotten to handle ref->ignore_visibility in setValue()?

For some code I am working on it would be really helpful if setValue()
could optionally work with private and protected attributes.

--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

17 years ago by Marcus Boerger — view source — reply

unread

Hello Sebastian,

allowing to read is more than enough. And ofr the record I did not like
that at all. If you need to write to a private variable, then obviously
your class design is wrong. And testing is no argument, as you can nicely
design so that this is not necessary.

marcus

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 8:29:05 PM, you wrote:

Currently ReflectionProperty::setValue() ignores the setting made by
ReflectionProperty::setAccessible(). Is this intentional or was it just
forgotten to handle ref->ignore_visibility in setValue()?

For some code I am working on it would be really helpful if setValue()
could optionally work with private and protected attributes.

--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

Best regards,
Marcus

17 years ago by Sebastian Bergmann — view source — reply

unread

Marcus Boerger wrote:

And testing is no argument, as you can nicely design so that this
is not necessary.

For once, testing is not the argument :-) But this is not the place to
discuss what I would like to use this feature for.

I do not see why we added setAccessible() for getValue() and not
setValue() when do not actually need it for getValue() [1].

--
[1] http://www.derickrethans.nl/private_properties_exposed.php

--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

16 years ago by Sebastian Bergmann — view source — reply

unread

Sebastian Bergmann schrieb:

Currently ReflectionProperty::setValue() ignores the setting made by
ReflectionProperty::setAccessible(). Is this intentional or was it just
forgotten to handle ref->ignore_visibility in setValue()?

See http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46718 for a patch that implements the
missing functionality in ReflectionProperty::setValue().

--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

16 years ago by Derick Rethans — view source — reply

unread

Sebastian Bergmann schrieb:

Currently ReflectionProperty::setValue() ignores the setting made by
ReflectionProperty::setAccessible(). Is this intentional or was it just
forgotten to handle ref->ignore_visibility in setValue()?

See http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=46718 for a patch that implements the
missing functionality in ReflectionProperty::setValue().

We shouldn't really modify test cases though, but just add new ones.
Other than that it looks ok, and yes, I simply forgot about this when
adding this.

Derick

--
HEAD before 5_3!: http://tinyurl.com/6d2esb
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ezcomponents.org | http://xdebug.org

16 years ago by Sebastian Bergmann — view source — reply

unread

Derick Rethans schrieb:

We shouldn't really modify test cases though, but just add new ones.

I only modified the existing test case because it contained dead code
and looked a bit confusing to me when I first read it.

Other than that it looks ok, and yes, I simply forgot about this when
adding this.

Thanks!

--
Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69