Correct. Test added.

Thinking a bit more about this, I think it will prevent legitimate configs. Can we throw only when a custome config validator is also used?

You meanvalidate() right? I dont see how that's related?

From the issue, even without the validation rule, our conclusion remains right? We cant test an env placeholder to be empty yes/no during compile, so we abstain.

Abstaining would mean not throwing unless we're sure this gonna be empty.
Here we can trivially break existing apps that eg use DATABASE_URL without providing any alternative, while it currently works.
It's related since the linked issue is exactly about that: combining cannot be empty with a validator.

Abstaining would mean not throwing

only as of 5.0 and when not removingcannotBeEmpty() :)

I see your point though, we're having the same discussion as in#26747 which lead to this change in the first place.

Basically we changed the solution, now with an upgrade path via deprecation. That's at least valid on the technical side to me. We can debate about empty envs in practice, but we cant deny its possibility.

I thought about allowing e.g.bool: andint: (seeisValueEmpty() inBooleanNode andNumericNode), but from Symfony perspective all envs are nullable :(

I think to solve the linked issue,#28838 alone is sufficient (it's about gettingnull not an empty string).

Tend to prefer the current behavior and assume envs not being empty compared to a conditional throw =/ So we could close here, the goal for 5.0 was noble though :)

without providing any alternative, while it currently works.

ideally we'd infer empty yes/no from the prefix (e.g.%(not-empty:SOME)%)

I got it 😂 checking for custom validators would (at least) avoid ever passing an empty string (or null for that matter) to closures, which would always be unexpected. And affects less apps, sure :)

Status: needs work

I think we need to have aforbidRuntimeValues or something like that, which would allow authors to tell the Config component that this value must be known at compile time, to allow providing a better error message. It is quite common to havesome settings for which supporting an env placeholder will never be possible (settings supporting a service id for instance).

that could work yes, and basically let the config author control

how does it relate tocannotBeEmpty()? Should we continue with this PR alogn with the suggestion to only trigger in case of custom validators?

Or would a newforbidRuntimeValues() supersede it?

@ro0NL I would say that in 5.0,cannotBeEmpty would automatically implyforbidRuntimeValues (as it would be performing a compile-time validation)

As explained above, I don't think this would be appropriate. It's very common to use an env var in a cannotbeempty option and have things just work. Breaking these without providing alternatives is a bad plan we should avoid IMHO.
I'm still thinking we should only conflict when a custom validator is defined, and let the rest in peace.
This feature is complex enough to not add more complexity on top...

@nicolas-grekas there is no way to guarantee that the env variable will be non-empty at runtime. So if your code is fine with that, it means it does not actually care about forbidding the empty value.

but anyway, I'm fine with havingforbidRuntimeValues separate fromcannotBeEmpty. I still think it makes sense to provideforbidRuntimeValues (there are use cases for that, and I already got bug reports in some bundles I maintain because of people trying to use env variables in a place where we were not supporting them and so ending up with%env(...)% as part of the service name for the alias)

if your code is fine with that, it means it does not actually care about forbidding the empty value

If the env var is always set in practice, the code never has to deal with empty value, that's why it works.

makes sense to provide forbidRuntimeValues

could be, but let's not hurry for it, as again complexity is high enough. Let's find a real use case first.

I'm glad we're on the same level here, in terms of understanding and settling. I agree with@nicolas-grekas to not rush the complexity with new features.

We should also investigate the other way around: assume envs will not be empty during runtime (check for that). If that's 9/10 cases, a opt-in thru env-prefix to indicate "could be empty" could also do it.

@nicolas-grekas the first real-world use case is in DoctrineBundle. the default entity manager cannot be changed using an env variable

And we also have many similar cases in Symfony itself, where some settings are necessary at compile time (look at SecurityBundle for instance)

Ready. I've added comments to clarify the intend as much as possible :) hope it's clear like this.

See#28896 for the other discussion.

status: needs review

assume envs will not be empty during runtime (check for that).

I like this idea, we could even deprecate empty env vars and throw when one is defined in 5.0!

@ro0NL could you please create a Symfony Docs issue for this? If possible, please review the existing docs to tell us if this new feature requires to change/remove anything in the current docs. And also, please tell us if we need to add something new. Thanks a lot!

im hesitating we should tell ppl :)

Thank you@ro0NL.