I extracted the CS fixes into

• [ObjectMapper] CS fixes #60031

to keep this PR clean

Ready for review@mtarld@GromNaN

The feature is relevant, but I find the syntax of the attribute is not explicit.

I would find it clearer if the target contained[class, property] instead. That would let theif for an actual condition.

- #[Map(target: 'foo', transform: 'strtoupper', if: B::class)]+ #[Map(target: [B::class, 'foo'], transform: 'strtoupper']

I would find it clearer if the target contained [class, property] instead. That would let the if for an actual condition.

This was my first attempt but its weird to use a Closure that's not interpreted as a Closure no? Also thetarget is either a class or a property name, using this would require more code changes. instead of

Then, can we add atargetClass property to the attribute? We'd need separate attribute classes since the properties diverge:MapClass andMapProperty.

targetClass is confusing with target, not sure this needs to split attributes in two for now and if we didMapProperty would have class and property. What's wrong with just having the class on theif?

#[Map(if: fn($target) => $target instance of ClassName)]

using the class name is just a shortcut for that. Although to make this work we would also need to add thetarget to our callbacks.

To re-center the debate I think symfony should allow some use cases with a as straightforward as possible DX, when users want more behavior it's quite feasible using the MetadataFactory.

Adding thetarget after thevalue and thesource, sounds like a good idea. The condition callable signature would becomefunction (mixed $value, object $source, object $target).

The if condition can be an invokable object that implementsConditionCallableInterface.

readonlyclass TargetClassimplements ConditionCallableInterface {publicfunction__construct(privatestring$targetClass) {}publicfunction__invoke(mixed$value,object$source,object$target):bool {returnis_a($this->targetClass,$target,true);    }}

Usage:

#[Map(target: B::class)]class A{    #[Map(target:'foo', transform:'strtoupper', if:newTargetClass(B::class))]publicstring$something ='test';}

That way, it's explicit, it doesn't require the PHP 8.5 closures in attributes and keep a good DX. Later you can combine more conditions by nesting objects.

Experimentation:soyuka#1

I'm being late on this, but having this check on theif condition will avoid potential optimization later if there is other conditions.

It's due to the fact, that those kind of condition (evaluating a target class) can be easily checked during metadata extraction. But if there is future condition that induce runtime check it will be impossible to extrapolate this check during metadata extraction (since it's too generic) so we will have to do it each time

Maybe something like this would be better :

#[Map(target: B::class)]#[Map(target: C::class)]class A{    #[Map(to:'foo', target: B::class, transform:'strtoupper')]    #[Map(to:'bar')]publicstring$something ='test';publicstring$doesNotExistInTargetB ='foo';}

It keep target consistent with the attribute being on either a property or the class,

However this is a hard change in current api (but since it's not released i think it's ok ?)

It would be no problem yes

@joelwurtz I think it's too confusing to haveto/from andsource/target. I don't share the concerns as we can easily take this check as a "static" check that we can induce during the metadata extraction. We could also add a particular interface that would force these checks at runtime instead.

Personally i find this confusing to have the same property on the same attribute that does not mean the same thing given the position of the attribute :/ (as an user i would expect a property having the same meaning)

I don't share the concerns as we can easily take this check as a "static" check that we can induce during the metadata extraction. We could also add a particular interface that would force these checks at runtime instead.

Not sure how it would work since they may be check that combine multiple checks ?

I just find this complex given the use case

EDIT :

Also this could be :

#[Map(property:'foo', target: B::class, transform:'strtoupper')]

(Could be also rename ? or any other name)

So no to / from, work both ways

I'm not sure we need to anticipate these use cases quite yet as we're still a long way to go before adding performance optimizations. I suggest that we leave this like this: theif adds a condition, and it's quite clear that "map only when this class is the target" is a condition. I want this API to be tried in user-land and we'll see if the use cases don't match we'll consider changing the whole API. Same goes when we will want to introduce performance with a cache warmup we'll see how this goes.

Not sure how it would work since they may be check that combine multiple checks ?

Sure but then they would be executed at runtime, just like transformations. Let's say we haveclass TargetClass implements StaticConditionInterface then we know we can execute the condition when doing an optimization pass. If not, we just use the condition at runtime.

Personally i find this confusing to have the same property on the same attribute that does not mean the same thing given the position of the attribute

You mean having thetarget being aclass on the class attribute and aproperty on the property attribute? Then we shall have two different attributes and it brings other issues (like mapping an embed object).

You mean having the target being a class on the class attribute and a property on the property attribute? Then we shall have two different attributes and it brings other issues (like mapping an embed object).

Yes that was i mean, i think consistent wording is important across a component, specially when this parameter can be considered as a "configuration" parameter having different meaning for the same word in the same component will induce a lot of friction IMO

Although the potential confusion seems real, making that setting context-dependent (i.e. expecting a property if used on a property vs a FQCN if used on a class) looks sensible to me. Throwing meaningful errors on such mistake should be good enough, do we have that?

IMHO its outside of the current scope of this PR we can always open a new issue to discuss this (or add this to the RFC issue)

Thank you@soyuka.