third option: do as the SecurityListener in FrameworkExtraBundle: allow expressions, but not by using the ExpressionVoter itself, allowing you to exposeis_granted to call the full-featured access decision logic (for instance usingis_granted('EDIT', subject) to vote on the subject rather than just onnull)

Pros:

• very flexible
• easy for simple checks (if you also expose the functions available inside the ExpressionVoter language, as done in@Security).
• we can expose additional variables in the expression if needed, as we control it (the workflow name, the transition name, etc... depending on what actually makes sense)
• we can add more workflow-specific functions (a way to check whether another place is also marked, not sure whether it makes sense ?)

I see several cons in your option 2:

• not allowing to vote on an object (the one being marked is a candidate here), or enforcing it depending on the implementation (both ways can have issues, as we need to be able to do both of them)
• not flexible at all when wanting to implement more complex checks, as expressions are not available (not sure why you listed this as a Pro. It is not one IMO). And custom voters don't help much here if there is no access to the subject.

@stof Thanks. That's very cool. I did not think to do that ;) I will do that !

Just to clarify your point about 2/: I said it's more flexible because in the end you write pure PHP. That's why it is the most flexible solution. Thus you have access to the object in the voter (because the listener pass it to the AuthChecker)

@lyrixx but forcing to pass it is not always the most flexible. I have voters which explicitly vote onnull and abstain when being asked to vote on an object (because a most specific voter is responsible for it). The RoleVoter accepts anything (it ignores the subject entirely) so it does not hurt to pass it in this case, but it is less flexible.

I pushed the new version ;) Ready for review.

More of a semantic, but why 'guard' instead of 'authorization'?

@iltar usually people useguard for this kind of things. More over the event is namedguard.

refs:

• https://refactoring.com/catalog/replaceNestedConditionalWithGuardClauses.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guard_(computer_science)

Thus, here you can block a transition not only with the security but with, for example, the subject itself. So authorization seems too "security related" to me.

The expression seems to be used for authorization, hence I was wondering. Guard sounds fine in this case though.

I updated the PR description to add another example where we don't use the security. I guess it's better now.

In routing, this is called "condition", maybe better and more consistent?

In that case, it will not be consistent with the workflow. to me,guard is better.

Fabbot is red, and deps=low line also

@nicolas-grekas Rebase + Fixed tests. Now it's green.

@stof Is it what you had in mind ?

👍

Thank you@lyrixx.

This functionality (and also other extensions) was implemented inhttps://github.com/GlobalTradingTechnologies/workflow-extensions-bundle long time ago)

See for exampletransition blocking feature

What about adding guard expressions forworkflow.guard andworkflow.id.guard events too?

Hello@destillat

you are commenting a closed/merged PR. So I suggest you to open a new issue instead.
When you will do that, please add more information because ATM, I'm not sure to understand what you want.

Thanks.

FYI this is not documented

@bendavies

you are commenting a closed/merged PR.
Could you open an issue (if it does not exist) in the doc repo ?https://github.com/symfony/symfony-docs