| Package home | Report new bug | New search | Development Roadmap | Status: Open | Feedback | All | Closed Since Version 0.6.8 |
| Bug #3818 | AuthorizeNet::process() method accessing private member of "Result" object | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Submitted: | 2005-03-15 05:45 UTC | ||
| From: | jausions | Assigned: | |
| Status: | Open | Package: | Payment_Process |
| PHP Version: | Irrelevant | OS: | Irrelevant |
| Roadmaps: | (Not assigned) | ||
[2005-03-15 05:45 UTC] jausions
Description:
------------
The Payment_Process_AuthorizeNet::process() method calls Payment_Process_Result::factory() method, but then access the private member _request to set itself as the caller. Even though it works under PHP4, this is not good practice.
Either pass the processor as a parameter to the factory method, or use a separate method to set it (setProcessor()) or change the private member to a public one.
I would think modifying the factory method is the best way to go...
-Philippe
Comments
[2005-03-23 19:20 UTC] jstump
Please do not submit the same bug more than once. An existing
bug report already describes this very problem. Even if you feel
that your issue is somewhat different, the resolution is likely
to be the same. Because of this, we hope you add your comments
to the existing bug instead.
Thank you for your interest in PEAR.
Dupe of bug 3790 (as this applies to all drivers and not
just AuthorizeNet)
[2005-03-23 23:28 UTC] jausions
At least PHP 5 will complain about passing by reference &$this in Payment_Process_*::process() call to the Payment_Process_Result::factory() method. Even with E_STRICT turned off.
I know that PHP 4 doesn't support passing by reference with default. Is it to prevent BC break that you did it this way?
Should someone really create a Payment_Process_Result instance without going through a Payment_Process_*processor instance...?
Given the status of the package is it worth it to do it that way?
-Philippe