Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork5.2k
Access control#3339
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Access control#3339
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
On a relative topic, in 2.4 doc, you may want to add a reference to I'm waiting for this PR to be merged before submitting it. |
| Access Control | ||
| -------------- | ||
| Now that you have Users, Roles, we can go further than URL patterns based authorization. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
you should always avoid a form of "we" or "let's"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I suggestNow that you have users and roles, [...]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I'm not sure to fully get your comments.
Does this phrasing sounds good to you? I kept capital letters as they are precise concepts.
Now that you have Users and Roles, you can go further than URL patterns based authorization.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
+1
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Fixed :)
👍 great job! I reviewed all new lines, I'm not sure if I commented on things you changed, but it would be great if you could fix those too |
| In fact, anything in Symfony can be protected using a strategy similar to | ||
| the one seen in the previous section. For example, suppose you have a service | ||
| (i.e. a PHP class) whose job is to send emails from one user to another. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
shouldn't it be which instead of whose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
it's a jobof the service, so it should be "whose" imo, but let's wait what our native thinks :)
Hi, @wouterj actually I didn't modified any content, but improving the existing document is always great :) |
👍 Thank you! (btw, if you know how to do it: could you please squash your commits?) |
@wouterj this is done! |
Great job Romaric! These are exactly the types of changes that I think are important, but can only be done if someone knowledgable has time to read through an entire chapter and think about how the information is being communicated. So, we really appreciate this! Thanks! |
Thanks@weaverryan :) |
Hi,
One more PR about simplifying Security doc: several paragraphs were redundant, such as "Securing a controller", "Access Control in a Controller"...
I factored all relative sections in a part called "Access Control", logically coming after "Users" and "Roles" parts.