Commits
-------

5772e556 Mention Finder and Process in changelog also
ed3178ba Add note to changelog, improve symfony_bridges changelog entry
1f30a648 Move some dependencies to require-dev and suggest

Discussion
----------

Move some dependencies to require-dev and suggest

* BrowserKit, CssSelector and DomCrawler are only needed for functional tests
  This should be an optional dependency.

* Process and Finder are only used to build the phar, they are dev dependencies.

PS: Thanks to @weaverryan for pointing it out!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by fabpot at 2012-05-31T14:03:34Z

That should be documented in the changelog as this is a BC break.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-31T14:12:22Z

Done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-31T14:57:49Z

BTW: Keeping browserkit and friends for the phar was intentional.

Commits
-------

9e27912d Remove references to ClassLoader

Discussion
----------

Remove references to ClassLoader

* BrowserKit, CssSelector and DomCrawler are only needed for functional tests
  This should be an optional dependency.

* Process and Finder are only used to build the phar, they are dev dependencies.

Commits
-------

f9837f85 Switch to FileSessionHandler, NativeFileSessionHandler remove upstream
e9af894a Added simple smoke test for default session provider setup
a34077d8 Updated vendors

Discussion
----------

Switch NativeFileSessionHandler to FileSessionHandler

Looks like it's been removed upstream...

Commits
-------

c8592e78 Translation doc: added Twig bridge explanation
87e2872d Removed SymfonyBridgesServiceProvider from the translation documentation, as it doesn't exist anymore

Discussion
----------

Removed SymfonyBridgesServiceProvider from the translation documentation

Hi!

As you removed SymfonyBridgesServiceProvider (commit 75556d7e), I removed it from the translation documentation too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by stof at 2012-05-30T22:35:37Z

You should say that this will work when you have the bridge in your project, not always

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by neurolit at 2012-05-30T22:54:25Z

Thanks for your advice, stof. I added a link to the bridge documentation (not sure this is the right syntax, though).

Removed SymfonyBridgesServiceProvider from the translation documentation, as it doesn't exist anymore

See commit 75556d7e

Commits
-------

7509fa2f Added more tests on validator provider

Discussion
----------

Added more tests on validator provider

To avoid another regression fixed by PR #321,
tests ensure validation works on form built without class

To avoid another regression fixed by PR #321,
tests ensure validation works on form built without class

Commits
-------

f2cc243b Merge pull request #1 from igorw/swiftmailer-test
f43dd5a5 Fix SwiftmailerServiceProviderTest (stub the spool)
1798d08f Merge branch 'master' into swiftmailer-test
5ed7e45f remove  variable
f1edad0c following @igorw approach
a238971e Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master'
34ddab52 add a test for swiftmailerServiceProvider app->finish event
5d599be3 add test for SwiftmailerServiceProvider and update composer.json require-dev section

Discussion
----------

Add test for Swiftmailer service provider

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-25T12:39:59Z

A test that verifies that Application->finish() sends mails would be nice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-25T13:03:39Z

Ok, makes sense, will work on that and send a new pull request :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by GromNaN at 2012-05-25T13:05:58Z

@ricardclau You can simply commit to the same branch to update the PR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-25T15:45:13Z

What do you think about this way of testing listener?
Couldn't find a better way to test it so any comments are more than welcome!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-25T16:04:29Z

Not a good idea, the asserts may not be executed. Also, please don't call run. Call terminate explicitly.

My approach would be:

* define a controller that sends a message
* check the spool to make sure it's empty
* call handle()
* check the spool to make sure it has a message
* call terminate
* check the spool to make sure the message is flushed

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-25T16:10:27Z

Sounds much better, I'll try my best as you suggest.

Although your method seems much better than mine, I'm curious... in which cases asserts would not be executed?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-25T18:11:33Z

Seems I screwed up a little bit. Once all is ok, I can provide a clean pull request if you prefer so.
Sorry and waiting for your comments

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by stof at 2012-05-25T22:07:17Z

@ricardclau no need to create a new PR. Once the review is done, you can simply squash your commits and force the push of the branch, which will update the PR. This is described in [the Symfony doc](http://symfony.com/doc/current/contributing/code/patches.html#rework-your-patch)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-26T02:49:31Z

@stof I didn't know that! Amazing!
The best thing of trying to contribute in Symfony community is always the amount of things you can learn from all you guys! Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-30T09:19:52Z

@igorw Ping? Is it now ok? Anything that should be changed?
Waiting for your comments

Regards!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-30T15:17:02Z

@ricardclau I've submitted a PR to your repo, please merge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by ricardclau at 2012-05-30T15:33:50Z

Merged

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-30T15:45:16Z

Ok, this looks good to me.

Commits
-------

ea7c057c regiser mapping file for the Form in the Validator

Discussion
----------

Add mapping file for the form in the validator service

Hi,

I've added mapping file for the form in the validator in order to get the proper validation process when a form instance is build using a Form Definition class + a Data Class.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by bamarni at 2012-05-25T11:30:24Z

👍 indeed form validation wasn't setup properly

Swiftmailer test

* master:
  made monolog logger as the default logger when the monolog bridge is installed
  added the ServiceProviderInterface::boot() method
  fixed some skipped comments
  fixed Twig provider
  removed the Symfony bridges provider as it is not needed anymore with Composer
  added the possibility to register a logger for internal services
  fixed markup in the docs
  removed translation.messages in favor of translation.domains
  Remove dependency on the ClassLoader component.

fix cs

Commits
-------

c5e7a0b3 made monolog logger as the default logger when the monolog bridge is installed

Discussion
----------

Use Monolog as the default logger when the Symfony2 Monolog bridge is installed

#330 is a pre-requisite for this PR to be merged.

Commits
-------

c7536412 added the ServiceProviderInterface::boot() method

Discussion
----------

added the ServiceProviderInterface::boot() method

The `register` method for the service providers should only be about configuring services and parameters. But some service providers (monolog, swiftmailer, and session) also register some event listeners which means that the `dispatcher` service is created.

This makes some things impossible like replacing the `dispatcher` service (except if you make sure to override it *before* the other providers). Also, if you want to use Monolog for the logger, it won't work as there is a chicken and egg problem.

So, I propose to introduce a new `boot()` method on `ServiceProviderInterface` that must be called after all the providers are registered.

The `boot()` method is automatically called by the `handle()` method if not already called by the developer.

TODO: update the doc

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by fabpot at 2012-05-26T09:59:48Z

We can avoid the BC break by creating a new `BootableServiceProviderInterface` but it seems overkill (especially because we are not stable yet).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by stof at 2012-05-26T10:36:05Z

👍 And I agree that adding a new interface is overkill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by igorw at 2012-05-27T18:14:06Z

I'm not so happy with the BC break and that an additional method is required, but I can't think of any better way to solve this cleanly. So I guess let's go for it.

Commits
-------

c9fb6da5 Remove dependency on the ClassLoader component.

Discussion
----------

Remove dependency on the ClassLoader component.