feat(doctrine): add requirements dynamically based on doctrine field

[VincentLanglet]

Q	A
Branch?	main
Tickets	Closes #7476
License	MIT
Doc PR	api-platform/docs#...

[VincentLanglet]

Test are failing because of this line

core/tests/Fixtures/TestBundle/State/ContainNonResourceProvider.php

Line 41 in 15ea6d8

$cnr->nested->id = "$id-nested";

1-nested is set as id to the nested ressource and then the uri is not correctly generated because it's not a valid id.

I feel like the error is still legit because the resource has

    #[ORM\Column(type: 'integer')]
    #[ORM\Id]
    #[ORM\GeneratedValue(strategy: 'AUTO')]
    #[Groups('contain_non_resource')]

which means that 1-nested will never be a valid id.

But it still make me think I cannot add automatically a requirement if a Provider is used.

[soyuka]

Suggested change

	if ($operation instanceof HttpOperation) {
	if ($operation instanceof HttpOperation && null === $operation->getRequirements()) {

[soyuka]

Not sure that this should be enabeld like this, especially with regular expression. I largely prefer using validation constraints (that are now enabled on query parameters and that we should activate on uri variables).

IMO this should likely be opt-in.

[VincentLanglet]

I'll give you my use case (which is maybe wrong).

When let's say I declare a Get() route on project resource, without specifying the url.
By default ApiPlatform will generate project/{id}

Let's say I also declare manually a GET project/settings url, this will conflict and ApiPlatform will try to resolve setting as an id even if

• It's not digit (if I use integer ids)
• It's not a uuid (if I use uuids)

By adding requirements I solve the conflict. What would recommend you instead ?

When people are defining manually they template we could consider it's legit to ask them to add the requirement too. But when it's api platform which auto-generate the url, it's an issue.

[soyuka]

can you not set the requirements yourself?

[VincentLanglet]

Sure I can do, and will do (manually or with a RequirementResourceMetadataCollectionFactory). But it felt "weird" to me to have a definition like

new Get(
     requirements: ['uuid' => '...']
);

when the route is not explicitly given. And I wanted to avoid to redefine

new Get(
     uriTemplate: 'foo/{uuid}',
     requirements: ['uuid' => '...']
);

since it's already the default uriTemplate.

But, not a big deal