Hi, has anybody been working with strict transfers extensively? We are facing an issue when defining

UKMHZV8LX

Hi, has anybody been working with strict transfers extensively? We are facing an issue when defining a strict transfer, that contains another transfer.

Consider this example:

<transfer name="Foo" strict="true">
    <property name="bar" type="Bar">
</transfer>

<transfer name="Bar" strict="true">

</transfer>

It will create a transfer Foo containing a property bar, that can be of type Bar|null. This is as expected.

However Foo::fromArray will do Foo::assertInstanceOfTransfer on property bar, which will throw an exception, if bar is null. This is not expected.

Does somebody know, whether there is a bug or we use this feature in a wrong way?

Thanks in advance.

Unknown

Please always mention the version you are running the module with.
Is that latest module Transfer version?

UKMHZV8LX

It’s 3.29.2

Unknown

That issue sounds familiar.
Let me check if we are close to releasing this fix.

The $value !== null part is missing in the check

if ($value !== null && $this->isPropertyStrict($normalizedPropertyName)) {
    $this->assertInstanceOfTransfer($normalizedPropertyName, $value);
}

per transfer.

I can let you know what I find out.
In the meantime you could adjust the template accordingly and continue.

UKMHZV8LX

Thanks

Valerii Trots

May I close the support request if it's clarified then? Or not yet?

Unknown

I will try to push this fix to be available before NYE.
I cannot say if we should close or keep open until then.

UKMHZV8LX

I would like to keep the case open until a fix is available. Thanks for following up on this.

Unknown

Good news, the fix has been released now as https://github.com/spryker/transfer/releases/tag/3.30.2

Unknown

@UKMHZV8LX Did this fix your issues?
Can we then close this topic?

UKMHZV8LX

Oh well, I did not notice, that a fix is in place as I did not receive a reply from the service desk.

Unknown

I am sure it is coming, but I wanted to give you a heads up beforehand. Just to make sure we covered all points.

UKMHZV8LX

I will need some time to really run the implementation, but from looking at the code it looks fine.