[Swig-devel] [ swig-Bugs-2892647 ] wrong class name in php code when using -prefix

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #2892647, was opened at 2009-11-05 15:41
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by gverbruggen
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101645&aid=2892647&group_id=1645

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: php
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: gverbruggen (gverbruggen)
Assigned to: Olly Betts (olly)
Summary: wrong class name in php code when using -prefix

Initial Comment:
Methods returning a class instance in the php OO wrapper do no correctly prefix the class name:

$c='PREFIX_'.substr(get_resource_type($r), (strpos(get_resource_type($r), '__') ? strpos(get_resource_type($r), '__') + 2 : 3));
if (!class_exists($c)) {
       return new SomeClass($r);    <-- wrong: should be: return new PREFIX_SomeClass($r)
}
return new $c($r);

patch:

In Source/Modules/php.cxx

line 1688:
Printf(output, "\t\t\t\treturn new %s($r);\n", Getattr(classLookup(d), "sym:name"))
should be
Printf(output, "\t\t\t\treturn new %s%s($r);\n", prefix, Getattr(classLookup(d), "sym:name"));





----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: gverbruggen (gverbruggen)
Date: 2009-11-06 10:18

Message:
The diff is attached. I'm using the 1.3.40 release. I could not find any
other bug report describing this, so I assumed it hasn't been fixed yet,
but I might be wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Olly Betts (olly)
Date: 2009-11-05 20:59

Message:
Thanks for your report.

What SWIG version are you using?  We fixed some issues like this fairly
recently.

If you still see this with the latest release, please attach a context
diff patches produce with "diff -u" .  A description of the line to change
is not a useful patch - line 1688 doesn't look anything like that in the
current sources, and it's hard to work out where the corresponding code is
without any context.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=101645&aid=2892647&group_id=1645