Not sure if this is intentional or not, but I might have spotted a bug in the DataObject class:

public static $allowed_actions = null;

Shouldn't this be:

private static $allowed_actions = null;

As per the documentation:
http://doc.silverstripe.org/framework/en/changelogs/3.1.0#statics-in-custom-page-classes-need-to-be-private

Hi Bonner,

Is this is a bug please raise it on github where issues are now tracked.

I doubt it though and I think the advice is for subclasses of it, not the root object itself.

Well the subclass can't have a private static $allowed_access can it?

That is the problem.

Hence why I'm asking if the community thinks this is a bug or not.

Hi Bonner, thanks for spotting that - as swaiba suggests, best place to log this is the issues section of the framework repository on github.

https://github.com/silverstripe/silverstripe-framework/issues?labels=&milestone=&page=1&state=open

Hi camfindlay

Thanks for the link, I'll get it logged on github and see what is said there.

I'll post the outcome when there is one.

Thanks,
Matt

Here is the link to the issue:
https://github.com/silverstripe/silverstripe-framework/issues/3200

Much appreciated Matt.

Just a bit of house keeping, would you mind editing your original thread topic title to be more verbose please.

Part of what makes the forums useful is others using it as a knowledge tool to find similar problems. "Potential bug" might not be as useful for others as say...

"Potential bug? - DataObject $allowed_actions static is public not private in 3.1"

this to me would indicate 1) you are posing a question or some sort of discussion on something you are unsure of (use of the ?) and 2) some more insight into the possible issue which if I have wondered the same thing or had a similar query I might be more likely to jump into the conversation too.

Other than that keep up the good work, part of getting involved with SilverStripe is digging up improvements and issues, discussion and making them more transparent :)

Duly noted, the title in github was more verbose, although I should have really included the version number there too.

This really applies to version 3.0 too, as I checked back and the issue was in that version too.