Skip to content

[#16705] - refactor: remove has() check in doGet(). #16709

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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 20, 2025

Conversation

noone-silent
Copy link
Contributor

Hello!

In raising this pull request, I confirm the following:

  • I have read and understood the Contributing Guidelines
  • I have checked that another pull request for this purpose does not exist
  • I wrote some tests for this PR
  • I have updated the relevant CHANGELOG
  • I have created a PR for the documentation about this change

Small description of change: Remove the has() check in doGet()

Thanks

@noone-silent noone-silent requested a review from niden March 8, 2025 05:19
@niden
Copy link
Member

niden commented Mar 19, 2025

@noone-silent Can you rebase please. The changelog entry needs to go to 5.9.1

This looks good.

@noone-silent
Copy link
Contributor Author

@noone-silent Can you rebase please. The changelog entry needs to go to 5.9.1

This looks good.

done

@niden niden merged commit acd51de into phalcon:5.0.x Mar 20, 2025
42 checks passed
@niden
Copy link
Member

niden commented Mar 20, 2025

Thank you @noone-silent

@Sn0wCrack
Copy link

I've created a bug report in relation to this one, but this is causing issues with adapters that do not do existence checks within themselves or return false naturally.

One issue here is the cached value is actually a PHP false then it will always return the default value, which is null. In a loose checked world this is probably fine, but in a strict checked application this may cause problems.

@niden I think this may need to be reverted unless a quick fix can be implemented.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants