Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center.Problem/Motivation
1. CacheBackendInterface contains const CACHE_PERMANENT = -1.
2. Drupal\Core\Cache\Cache contains const PERMANENT = CacheBackendInterface::CACHE_PERMANENT.
3. Both constants are referenced in the interface, but inconsistently:
interface CacheBackendInterface {
/**
* ...
* @param int $expire
* One of the following values:
* - CacheBackendInterface::CACHE_PERMANENT: Indicates that the item should
* not be removed unless it is deleted explicitly.
* ...
*/
public function set($cid, $data, $expire = Cache::PERMANENT, array $tags = array());
/**
* ...
* // Optional, defaults to CacheBackendInterface::CACHE_PERMANENT.
* 'expire' => CacheBackendInterface::CACHE_PERMANENT,
* ...
*/
/* ... */
}
There's no obvious explanation as to why these two constants are set equal in the first place, or when one should be used and not the other; which means it's difficult to work out whether or not this is even a bug in code.
Proposed resolution
Either this is a code bug or a (lack of) documentation bug, so either one should be patched.
Remaining tasks
1. Determine what kind of bug it is and maybe update the component accordingly.
2. Propose a fix and create a patch.
3. Approve patch.
User interface changes
None.
API changes
None.
Data model changes
None.
Comments
Comment #2
Anonymous (not verified) CreditAttribution: Anonymous commentedSlice of history:
Cache::PERMANENTappeared just for simplify usage (see #2169447: DX: Supply CacheBackendInterface::CACHE_PERMANENT as Cache::PERMANENT).Mentioned comment in CacheBackendInterface appeared earlier, but was commited later (see #1167248: Add CacheBackendInterface::setMultiple()).
Comment #3
jp.stacey CreditAttribution: jp.stacey at Magnetic Phield commented@vapias thanks for the background. I can see why
Cache::PERMANENTmight have been introduced; but I'm not 100% sureCacheInterface::set(), as an interface method, should be referring to aconstfrom a concrete class as an argument default: it feels like we're extending in the wrong direction; like there's like a weak cyclical dependency at work here.Cache::set()could certainly refer to its ownconst, though.But I'm not really opinionated either way: the main thing is that, even if there's no change to the code, it would be good if one or other of the docblocks for the
consts at least made some reference to why the decision was made.Would appreciate opinions from people more opinionated than me: do we want to change the code, or just the docblocks?
Comment #14
catchNo functional bug here but agree this is confusing, I think we should pick one.