Behaviour change in executeInserts() in 2.15.1 #7160

New Issue

admin · 2026-01-22T15:45:47+01:00

admin commented

2026-01-22 15:45:47 +01:00

Originally created by @sips-richard on GitHub (Jun 2, 2023).

BC Break Report

Behaviour change in Basic Entity Persister to resolve BackedEnum to value prior to call to bindValue() means that the original value no longer makes it to configured types for handling.

09b4a75ed3 (diff-cde081d92bca42e1b0df117b840a39066470673f9457a8c5b8725e5e43a8e211R275)

Q	A
BC Break	yes
Version	2.15.1+

Summary

The following code was introduced into executeInserts() in 2.15.1:

if ($value instanceof BackedEnum) {
    $value = $value->value;
}

... prior to the existing logic to bind values after processing them via their configured types:

$stmt->bindValue($paramIndex++, $value, $this->columnTypes[$column]);

This means that our custom enum types are no longer receiving the enum case as it is being pre-resolved.

This is a bit of a heavy-handed change for a patch version, no?

Previous behavior

Enum cases were simply passed to bindValue() and were processed by type objects.

$stmt->bindValue($paramIndex++, $value, $this->columnTypes[$column]);

Current behavior

BackedEnums are converted to backed value so that only backed value reaches the configured type; in our cases our custom enum types are expecting enum cases, not their value.

We can amend our enum types to handle the value as an alternative to the enum case if necessary, but the change seems rather excessive for a patch change.

How to reproduce

See above.

Originally created by @sips-richard on GitHub (Jun 2, 2023). ### BC Break Report Behaviour change in Basic Entity Persister to resolve BackedEnum to value prior to call to `bindValue()` means that the original value no longer makes it to configured types for handling. https://github.com/doctrine/orm/commit/09b4a75ed3ec3d67f805f6ccc22399997c31f022#diff-cde081d92bca42e1b0df117b840a39066470673f9457a8c5b8725e5e43a8e211R275 | Q | A |------------ | ------ | BC Break | yes | Version | 2.15.1+ #### Summary The following code was introduced into `executeInserts()` in 2.15.1: ``` if ($value instanceof BackedEnum) { $value = $value->value; } ``` ... prior to the existing logic to bind values after processing them via their configured types: ``` $stmt->bindValue($paramIndex++, $value, $this->columnTypes[$column]); ``` This means that our custom enum types are no longer receiving the enum case as it is being pre-resolved. This is a bit of a heavy-handed change for a patch version, no? #### Previous behavior Enum cases were simply passed to bindValue() and were processed by type objects. ``` $stmt->bindValue($paramIndex++, $value, $this->columnTypes[$column]); ``` #### Current behavior BackedEnums are converted to backed value so that only backed value reaches the configured type; in our cases our custom enum types are expecting enum cases, not their value. We can amend our enum types to handle the value as an alternative to the enum case if necessary, but the change seems rather excessive for a patch change. #### How to reproduce See above.

admin closed this issue

2026-01-22 15:45:47 +01:00

admin commented

2026-01-22 15:45:47 +01:00

@mpdude commented on GitHub (Jun 2, 2023):

@Gwemox can you help here? You authored the change that caused the regression.

@mpdude commented on GitHub (Jun 2, 2023): @Gwemox can you help here? You authored the change that caused the regression.

admin commented

2026-01-22 15:45:48 +01:00

@Gwemox commented on GitHub (Jun 2, 2023):

I no longer remember the reason for these lines.
However, without these lines the tests continue to pass.

I think @greg0ire we can revert those 3 lines to fix this BC ?

@Gwemox commented on GitHub (Jun 2, 2023): I no longer remember the reason for these lines. However, without these lines the tests continue to pass. I think @greg0ire we can revert those 3 lines to fix this BC ?

admin commented

2026-01-22 15:45:48 +01:00

@greg0ire commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2023):

Yeah sure, let's revert them. If they turn out to be important, let's restore them, but this time, with a meaningful commit message, code comments, tests showing their purpose.

@greg0ire commented on GitHub (Jun 3, 2023): Yeah sure, let's revert them. If they turn out to be important, let's restore them, but this time, with a meaningful commit message, code comments, tests showing their purpose.

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: doctrine/archived-orm#7160