Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jul 14, 2025. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@Gerschtli
Copy link

It's very helpful, when properties like response and request are accessible in the custom feature context class, if you want to add some extra functionality that's currently not supported.

@stof
Copy link
Member

stof commented Nov 4, 2015

This would mean we would have to maintain BC on all these properties, which is bad for maintenance (it would make it impossible to merge #35 for instance)

@valthebald
Copy link

It's hard to imagine that properties like $this->request or $this->response would change their name or go away in any foreseeable future

@tchaffee
Copy link

+1 for exposing the request and response. It makes it far easier to extend the context. For example, when making a POST request I want to examine the headers of the response to make sure there is a 'Location'. Can't do it because I don't have access to $this->response. Maybe even better would be to expose $this->client. It has a well defined interface.

@stof
Copy link
Member

stof commented Nov 13, 2015

@valthebald they will change their type in the near future, because of #35, meaning it would be a BC break if it is exposed

@soullivaneuh
Copy link
Contributor

Maybe could you provide some concrete use cases for that?

It's maybe possible to find another way.

@stof Is this is going to be merged, #35 should be indeed be merged first.

@valthebald
Copy link

Specific use case is like others mention - extending the base context class.
+1 for #35 to be merged first, and in that case, child classes won't need $this->request, only $this->response and/or $this->client

@fabamatic
Copy link

This is a needed feature, testing requires flexible extensions and accesible data.

@soullivaneuh
Copy link
Contributor

@Gerschtli Can you please rebase your PR since #35 is merged?

@Gerschtli
Copy link
Author

Closed, see #69

@Gerschtli Gerschtli closed this Jun 26, 2017
@Gerschtli Gerschtli changed the title Changed accessibility of properties to protected Changed accessibility of properties to protected (duplicate) Jun 26, 2017
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

6 participants