symfony: [RFC] Reconsider the use of the "Violation" word

I understand the consideration but it’s the wrong way to take the question… making words “disappear” will never solve the problem. The problem is not the usage of the word, there are totally acceptable situations, eg. “violate the law” or in this case “violate a constraint”. It doesn’t signify raping at all.

If we start taking this path, we’ll end up in a very confuse situation where a lot of polysemic words should be banned.

I also understand you want to care about the sensibility of some people, but their “sensibility” is undeniabily altered after such “negative experiences” and what those people need is not hidding the reality but face them with according psychological help. We won’t help them doing such adaptations.

PS: don’t misunderstand me, I have very close relations that endured “hard things” so I’m not insensible to this question… quite the contrary. Also english is not my mother tongue… 😃

I’m closing this issue as “won’t fix” because nobody thinks that this is a bad word that should be considered … so that means we’re doing it right 👍 Thank you all for the civilized discussion!

Not sure if closing so fast was a good idea.

To me, the word violation is the right word in this context, since the input violated the restrictions set by the data object (assuming you use DTO’s). Same thing goes for violating the law. You don’t “error”, you broke a rule and are thus in violation (a quick example would be a Parking violation).

Something like ValidationError sounds like the validation itself failed and not that the data provided is invalid.

I understand that words and their meaning can change over time and that words can mean different things in different languages, but I don’t think this applies to violation, at least not in this specific context.

I’m also in keeping the Violation name since it’s more used as a legal term. Even in French or Spanish I think the word violation is not really used in the context of a rape.

Even synonyms are not really representative of what we are using in tech: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/violation

well, getting a validation error when a validation constraint fails does not looks weird to me (note that it cannot be a constraint validation, as that would make it a validation, which does not make sense in this context)

another option to consider could be to ensure that we always talk about constraint violation, instead of doing it only “most of the time”. This extra context might be enough for these people (not sure about that)

I wonder how renaming this is going to make someone who’s actually “violated” in some way feel any better.

@stof talking from the context of a form, I wasn’t clear about that, my bad:

    /**
     * @return FormErrorIterator An iterator over the {@link FormError}
     *                           instances that where added to this form
     */
    public function getErrors($deep = false, $flatten = true);

From a form perspective, this is correct. The conversion from a constraint violation to a form error happens behind the scene.

From the perspective of a developer it can already be a bit confusing:

• We add constraints
• We validate values based on those constraints
• We fire constraint violations when the data is invalid
• We get validation errors

There’s no naming consistency