Type error in UnionHandler

[dmaicher]

Q	A
Bug report?	yes
Feature request?	yeso
BC Break report?	yes
RFC?	no

Steps required to reproduce the problem

jms/serializer        3.31.1 Library for (de-)serializing data of any complexity; supports XML, and JSON.
jms/serializer-bundle 5.5.1  Allows you to easily serialize, and deserialize data of any complexity

$serializer = SerializerBuilder::create()->build();
$serializer->serialize(new class() {
    public array|int $foo = [1, 2, 3];
}, 'json');

Expected Result

• Should work fine

Actual Result

TypeError:
get_class(): Argument #1 ($object) must be of type object, array given

  at vendor/jms/serializer/src/Handler/UnionHandler.php:56

[scyzoryck]

It looks like arrays are not supported in current implementation at all. I will take a look at it. Looks like @simPod already started some work around that.
#1552

[mermshaus]

I can confirm this issue. Unfortunately, it breaks existing code. For the time being, we had to pin jms/serializer to v3.30.0 because of this. It might be a good idea to release a new version reverting these changes until the feature supports arrays. (Or, as I see the issue with that, to specify a workaround for disabling the new feature.)

#1552 isn’t working on this, I think. The MR is about “unions” (not really) in arrays, not arrays in unions.

[goetas]

Unfortunately, it breaks existing code

@scyzoryck would it make sense to revert the union types thing that is causing this error?

from my understanding, #1546 is the guilty one, right?

[scyzoryck]

We also I think have 2 MRs on top of #1546 so it might need some additional reverts. As an example: #1563
Current issues with Union Types:

• High prio: Support for true and false types. MR: Support value types in serialization #1569 - we need to add some
• High prio: Support for array type - I believe I can finish the basic support (fix the issue from this issue), feat: support unions in arrays #1552 may add complex types later.
• Medium/Low prio: It looks like there might be some issues with DepthExclusionStrategy for Union types, but I guess it was not working in the past at all.

Soo, personally I would go with fixing the issues, and going with the fix release this week with support for missing types.

[goetas]

Soo, personally I would go with fixing the issues, and going with the fix release this week with support for missing types.

👍