Use phpstan/phpdoc-parser to retrieve additional type information from PhpDoc #1261
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
goetas
reviewed
Nov 8, 2020
|
Nicely done! except only one comment, this looks good to me. @dgafka can you also check it please? |
|
since #1256 has been merged, this needs to be rebased. |
|
I changed the dependency location and rebased. #1256 is very welcomed by me as well by the way. since I was about to write a custom handler for |
|
yay! |
|
thanks a lot! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As suggested by @goetas in #1259, this PR fixes the mentioned issue by implementing
phpstan/phpdoc-parsersupport to read@vartags from PhpDoc. Only one test case for single-line PhpDoc parsing has been added, which works fine now.In my opinion, a BC break is introduced by adding a constructor to
DocBlockTypeResolver, since none existed before (which means possible extensions probably do not contain and call to the parent constructor so far).This needs to be reviewed carefully, as I'm not sure if I considered all possible cases. The tests seem to work fine though.