[ci] backport phpstan in 1.x #183
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jrushlow
added a commit
to jrushlow/verify-email-bundle
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 16, 2024
* main: minor SymfonyCasts#183 [ci] backport phpstan in 1.x
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
hindsight is 20/20 eh? #177 replaced psalm w/ phpstan WooHoo! But - I goofed... In reset-password, maker-bundle, etc... I:
Here i did the opposite. added phpstan -> fixed the issues -> merged in 2.x. Leaving 1.x w/o static coverage (psalm is no longer used). This PR cherry picks the bare minimum to get phpstan into 1.x w/ a generated baseline. The issues suppressed in
phpstan-baseline.neonhave already been fixed in 2.x.Going forward in 1.x - we won't fix any of the issues in the baseline (e.g. fix -> remove suppression) as this is already done (2.x). But - we won't add any new suppression's to the baseline in 1.x either. Otherwise I think, aside from doing duplicate work, we'd start to drift into merge hell... It's already hot enough here in Florida - let's not go any further south.
That said, if we need to fix a one off suppression here and there in 1.x - so be it...