Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Codesniffer: remove PHP 7.0 and 7.1 support #40174

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Nov 14, 2024

Conversation

tbradsha
Copy link
Contributor

As the title says, it removes PHP 7.0 and 7.1 support, and updates the tests accordingly.

We should add PHP 8+ tests, but that will probably be after updating to PHPUnit 10+.

Other information:

  • Have you written new tests for your changes, if applicable?
  • Have you checked the E2E test CI results, and verified that your changes do not break them?
  • Have you tested your changes on WordPress.com, if applicable (if so, you'll see a generated comment below with a script to run)?

Jetpack product discussion

Does this pull request change what data or activity we track or use?

Testing instructions:

Verify CI is happy, or run tests manually: composer test-php

Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your PR!

When contributing to Jetpack, we have a few suggestions that can help us test and review your patch:

  • ✅ Include a description of your PR changes.
  • ✅ Add a "[Status]" label (In Progress, Needs Team Review, ...).
  • ✅ Add testing instructions.
  • ✅ Specify whether this PR includes any changes to data or privacy.
  • ✅ Add changelog entries to affected projects

This comment will be updated as you work on your PR and make changes. If you think that some of those checks are not needed for your PR, please explain why you think so. Thanks for cooperation 🤖


The e2e test report can be found here. Please note that it can take a few minutes after the e2e tests checks are complete for the report to be available.


Follow this PR Review Process:

  1. Ensure all required checks appearing at the bottom of this PR are passing.
  2. Choose a review path based on your changes:
    • A. Team Review: add the "[Status] Needs Team Review" label
      • For most changes, including minor cross-team impacts.
      • Example: Updating a team-specific component or a small change to a shared library.
    • B. Crew Review: add the "[Status] Needs Review" label
      • For significant changes to core functionality.
      • Example: Major updates to a shared library or complex features.
    • C. Both: Start with Team, then request Crew
      • For complex changes or when you need extra confidence.
      • Example: Refactor affecting multiple systems.
  3. Get at least one approval before merging.

Still unsure? Reach out in #jetpack-developers for guidance!

zinigor
zinigor previously approved these changes Nov 14, 2024
Copy link
Member

@zinigor zinigor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sweet exorcism! Also alphabetical ordering FTW 👍🏽

@@ -25,9 +25,6 @@
<rule ref="MediaWiki.WhiteSpace.EmptyLinesBetweenUse" />
<rule ref="MediaWiki.WhiteSpace.MultipleEmptyLines" />
<rule ref="MediaWiki.Usage.IsNull" />
<!-- Maybe in the future
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe in another universe :)

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In this case, it's redundant to another rule. :^)

@tbradsha
Copy link
Contributor Author

tbradsha commented Nov 14, 2024

Also alphabetical ordering FTW

These are auto-generated files. That said, I wonder why the order is different...I suspect the default on my machine vs. Brad's is different. 🤔

Edit: I tried running it after using export LC_COLLATE=C but there were no changes when I did so. @zinigor @anomiex can you confirm the generated files on your end result in no changes in the files that are committed in this branch? Ideally generation would be consistent.

Copy link
Contributor

@anomiex anomiex left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you confirm the generated files on your end result in no changes in the files that are committed in this branch?

Adding LC_ALL=C.UTF-8 at the top of the script makes it consistent with what you have here for me. So let's do that to make it consistent.

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ DIR="$(mktemp -d "${TMPDIR%/}/codesniffer-build-compat-rulesets.XXXXXXXX")"
trap 'rm -rf "$DIR"' EXIT
cd "$DIR"

PHP_VERSIONS=( 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 )
PHP_VERSIONS=( 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 )
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we go ahead and add 8.4 right away, or save that for a followup?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was figuring a separate PR, but no strong feelings.

@anomiex
Copy link
Contributor

anomiex commented Nov 14, 2024

We should add PHP 8+ tests, but that will probably be after updating to PHPUnit 10+.

It's not PHPUnit that needs updating, it's phpcompatibility/php-compatibility. I'm not sure if PHP 8.0 checks still aren't finished or if the v10 release is now waiting on 8.4 checks, but either way there's no release to update to. 🙁 https://xkcd.com/2347/

Copy link
Contributor

@anomiex anomiex left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's do it.

@tbradsha tbradsha merged commit 8ee1c37 into trunk Nov 14, 2024
53 checks passed
@tbradsha tbradsha deleted the remove/codesniffer/php_less_than_7.2 branch November 14, 2024 20:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants