Inform the application container about deferred providers before registering providers #38724
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…stering providers This change informs the application container about the deferred providers before registering the eager loaded providers. This fixes the issue of the vague exception of "Facade root not set" when attempting to use a deferred service provider via a facade (such as Cache) during the registration process of eagerly loaded service providers.
silly github editor...
|
It is not recommended to use any services in |
LukeTowers
added a commit
to wintercms/winter
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2021
Fixes #350. Refs laravel/framework#38724. Final solution in v1.2 will be to extend the base Laravel Cache serviceprovider and make it no longer a deferred provider as well as consolidating the MemoryCache implementations currently present in QueryBuilder, Halcyon Models, and the Halcyon ServiceProvider into the Winter Cache service provider.
bennothommo
pushed a commit
to wintercms/wn-system-module
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 9, 2021
Fixes #350. Refs laravel/framework#38724. Final solution in v1.2 will be to extend the base Laravel Cache serviceprovider and make it no longer a deferred provider as well as consolidating the MemoryCache implementations currently present in QueryBuilder, Halcyon Models, and the Halcyon ServiceProvider into the Winter Cache service provider.
LukeTowers
pushed a commit
to wintercms/storm
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 25, 2022
Reverts dff4e6e Partially reverts 6d95046 Implements laravel/framework#38724 into the Winter codebase, extending the base Laravel ProviderRepository class and overriding the load method. This will override the base provider loading functionality to record deferred providers before registering any eager loaded providers. This allows eager loaded providers to use deferred provider functionality (such as the Cache provider). In this method, this will technically make those providers eager loaded as well, but these providers will be deferred if no other provider uses them in registration.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change informs the application container about the deferred providers before registering the eager loaded providers. This fixes the issue of the vague exception of "Facade root not set" when attempting to use a deferred service provider via a facade (such as Cache) during the registration process of eagerly loaded service providers. The application cannot resolve a deferred provider unless it knows it has been deferred, and this line is what informs it of the deferred providers.
This should be an entirely harmless change that will enable the use of already loaded deferred service providers (that a developer would assume could be used, like the Cache provider) during the registration process of eager loaded service providers.
I understand if this change won't be accepted, but if it won't be I would greatly appreciate learning more about what potential issues this could cause so that I can understand the service provider registration flow in more detail.