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

Ensure php 8.2 compatibility #528

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Dec 8, 2022

Conversation

chris-doehring
Copy link

@chris-doehring chris-doehring commented Oct 16, 2022

This PR makes sure that the current state and future changes are tested against php 8.2.

I fixed two unit tests which fail in php 8.2 only, since php introduced a new random extension. Even without this change to the extension, I think the tests make more sense now.

As you can tell when executing the Faker tests in a php 8.2 environment, the following new deprecation's occur:

Remaining self deprecation notices (605)

  404x: Use of "static" in callables is deprecated
    200x in PhoneNumberTest::testPhoneNumber from Faker\Test\Provider\de_DE
    200x in PhoneNumberTest::testE164PhoneNumberFormat from Faker\Test\Provider\de_DE
    4x in PaymentTest::testBankAccountNumber from Faker\Test\Provider\ne_NP

  201x: Use of "self" in callables is deprecated
    134x in IbanTest::testIsValid from Faker\Test\Calculator
    67x in IbanTest::testChecksum from Faker\Test\Calculator

All of those are caused by legacy Faker components that probably cannot be fixed without making a backward incompatible change (related PHP RFC). I think it makes more sense to refactor all affected areas to the new Faker structure in order to be compatible to php 9.0.

Since we can't refactor everything right now, I've configured phpunit-bridge to not report a failed test execution unless we reach more than 1000 deprecation errors (we have 605 right now).

@chris-doehring chris-doehring changed the title Test against php 8.2 Ensure php 8.2 compatibility Oct 16, 2022
@chris-doehring chris-doehring added the enhancement New feature or request label Oct 16, 2022
@chris-doehring chris-doehring marked this pull request as ready for review October 16, 2022 21:27
@pimjansen
Copy link

Thanks Chris! I dont really like the idea of just ignoring it though.

It is a bit out of the comfort zone since we planned 2.x to be the refactor but isnt it better to push that to 3.x and just ensure we push 2.x and drop some old php versions here?

If we do it the way your pr describes we still are not really compatible

@chris-doehring
Copy link
Author

Hey @pimjansen,

in the way I proposed we are not ignoring it though and deprecation notices are notices, so we are still very much compatible to php 8.2. Those deprecation notices are hints that some code will not work in php 9.x anymore and don't change any compatibility behavior in php 8.x. We are not going to stop php 8.2 from releasing on November the 24th and according to Faker's version constraint's, we do support php 8.x. Any version of it.

My PR tested successfully that Faker ^1.20 is indeed compatible to php 8.2 and most importantly ensures that it will stay like that for minor changes still to come. I very much agree that we should not refactor the affected areas in 1.x, but instead do it in 2.x. At the end the goal of my PR is to ensure php 8.2 compatibility in the current stable release branch, nothing more 🙂

@chris-doehring
Copy link
Author

I'm not sure if you have noticed, but my change to the phpunit.xml will not hide those deprecation notices, but will ensure that we still receive exit code 0, although we have some. Otherwise the tests would fail because of just notices. Even with those, we are compatible to php ^8.2.
image

@TimWolla
Copy link

I fixed two unit tests which fail in php 8.2 only, since php introduced a new random extension.

One of the PHP 8.2 ext/random maintainers here: Ugh. The behavior of existing (seeded) functionality should not change with PHP 8.2. Can you provide a simple reproducer, e.g. using https://3v4l.org/, so I can take a look?

@chris-doehring
Copy link
Author

Hi @TimWolla,

I'm surprised that you actually found this PR 😄 This is basically what happens in the test: https://3v4l.org/SclY7

However, as you can see before php 8.2 it always returned the index 0 on third execution, but still the assertion did match three different words. The reason for that is, that the last execution of array_rand is somehow executed twice but I don't have a single clue why. In the test execution of Faker before 8.2 it returns the indexes 0, 1, 0, 2 and when I add backtraces, what triggered the individual array_rand calls, the last two outputs have been triggered by the same line of code. That's some black magic if you ask me. Under php 8.2 I get the indexes 1, 0, 2 which also matches the output of 3v4l.

code with debugging changes:

        $generator->addProvider(new class(...$words) {
            private $words;

            public function __construct(string ...$words)
            {
                $this->words = $words;
            }

            public function word(): string
            {
                $key = array_rand($this->words);
                var_dump($key);

                return $this->words[$key];
            }
        });

        $uniqueGenerator = $generator->unique();
        $generatedWords = [
            $uniqueGenerator->word(),
            $uniqueGenerator->word(),
            $uniqueGenerator->word(),
        ];
        var_dump($generatedWords);

PhpUnit output with php 8.1:

Testing Faker\Test\GeneratorTest
.                                                                                                                       1 / 1 (100%)
int(0)
int(1)
int(0)
int(2)
array(3) {
  [0]=>
  string(3) "foo"
  [1]=>
  string(3) "bar"
  [2]=>
  string(3) "baz"
}

But I think that's nothing you have to worry about, since it's not reproducible in 3v4l. You can already see the primary reason why it was necessary for me to refactor that test when checking my 3v4l example.

@TimWolla
Copy link

I'm surprised that you actually found this PR smile

In ancient times I've used and contributed to this library myself, e.g. fzaninotto#254 😃

The reason for that is, that the last execution of array_rand is somehow executed twice but I don't have a single clue why.

That's likely a feature of the ->unique() generator.

This is basically what happens in the test: https://3v4l.org/SclY7

Oh, you're using MT_RAND_PHP … don't do that. The MT_RAND_PHP variant is horribly horribly broken and we're hoping to deprecate it with PHP 8.3. Details are here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecations_php_8_3#mt_rand_php.

Nonetheless I'll have a look on whether this behavioral change can be avoided or not. Perhaps it's a side-effect of php/php-src#9197 (in which case this is unavoidable).

In the future this library should be updated to take an Random\Engine and then e.g. create a Random\Randomizer internally.

@chris-doehring
Copy link
Author

chris-doehring commented Oct 26, 2022

Oh, you're using MT_RAND_PHP … don't do that. The MT_RAND_PHP variant is horribly horribly broken and we're hoping to deprecate it with PHP 8.3.

All Faker test cases are setup with that by default:
https://github.com/FakerPHP/Faker/blob/main/test/Faker/TestCase.php#L18
https://github.com/FakerPHP/Faker/blob/main/src/Faker/Generator.php#L690

I also don't like relying of that "hacky" logic, hence my test refactoring since I would say it now checks in more logical way. And yes, the Faker source and it's test cases need some refactoring.

TimWolla added a commit to TimWolla/php-src that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2022
As some left-over comments indicated:

> Legacy mode deliberately not inside php_mt_rand_range()
> to prevent other functions being affected

The broken scaler was only used for `php_mt_rand_common()`, not
`php_mt_rand_range()`. The former is only used for `mt_rand()`, whereas the
latter is used for `array_rand()` and others.

With the refactoring for the introduction of ext/random `php_mt_rand_common()`
and `php_mt_rand_range()` were accidentally unified, thus introducing a
behavioral change that was reported in FakerPHP/Faker#528.

This commit moves the checks for `MT_RAND_PHP` from the general-purpose
`range()` function back into `php_mt_rand_common()` and also into
`Randomizer::getInt()` for drop-in compatibility with `mt_rand()`.
@TimWolla
Copy link

@chris-doehring That is indeed an unexpected regression you found. I've proposed a fix in php/php-src#9839.

TimWolla added a commit to php/php-src that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2022
#9839)

* Fix pre-PHP 8.2 compatibility for php_mt_rand_range() with MT_RAND_PHP

As some left-over comments indicated:

> Legacy mode deliberately not inside php_mt_rand_range()
> to prevent other functions being affected

The broken scaler was only used for `php_mt_rand_common()`, not
`php_mt_rand_range()`. The former is only used for `mt_rand()`, whereas the
latter is used for `array_rand()` and others.

With the refactoring for the introduction of ext/random `php_mt_rand_common()`
and `php_mt_rand_range()` were accidentally unified, thus introducing a
behavioral change that was reported in FakerPHP/Faker#528.

This commit moves the checks for `MT_RAND_PHP` from the general-purpose
`range()` function back into `php_mt_rand_common()` and also into
`Randomizer::getInt()` for drop-in compatibility with `mt_rand()`.

* [ci skip] NEWS for `MT_RAND_PHP` compatibility
@TimWolla
Copy link

The fix is now merged, the original tests should pass again with RC 6.

@chris-doehring
Copy link
Author

Thanks a lot @TimWolla! I reverted the test change. I guess we still need to wait another day for a fresh new nightly build of 8.2.0-dev in the shivammathur/setup-php@v2 project to see it in practice.

@chris-doehring
Copy link
Author

The new nightly build of 8.2.0-dev indeed fixed the test execution. I was even able to revert a DateTime test which relies on the same randomness iteration on every execution. Thanks for your support, Tim!

@TimWolla
Copy link

The new nightly build of 8.2.0-dev indeed fixed the test execution.

Awesome, thanks for confirming.

I was even able to revert a DateTime test which relies on the same randomness iteration on every execution.

Yes, unless there's a second bug in there, PHP 8.2 should now be 100% compatible with PHP 8.1. The bug I fixed affected array_rand(), shuffle(), and str_shuffle() for MT_RAND_PHP.


For the future, I would recommend the following:

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Nov 12, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed after 1 week if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@pimjansen
Copy link

pimjansen commented Nov 15, 2022

@chris-doehring thanks for all the effort. Will review this tonight with @bram-pkg so we can push a new minor that supports 8.2

@localheinz
Copy link
Member

@chris-doehring

Can you rebase on top of main, please?

@localheinz
Copy link
Member

@chris-doehring

Applying

diff --git a/src/Faker/Calculator/Iban.php b/src/Faker/Calculator/Iban.php
index c8fae242..470bf039 100644
--- a/src/Faker/Calculator/Iban.php
+++ b/src/Faker/Calculator/Iban.php
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ class Iban
         $checkString = substr($iban, 4) . substr($iban, 0, 2) . '00';

         // Replace all letters with their number equivalents
-        $checkString = preg_replace_callback('/[A-Z]/', ['self', 'alphaToNumberCallback'], $checkString);
+        $checkString = preg_replace_callback('/[A-Z]/', [self::class, 'alphaToNumberCallback'], $checkString);

         // Perform mod 97 and subtract from 98
         $checksum = 98 - self::mod97($checkString);

might fix a few deprecation notices.

@localheinz localheinz force-pushed the feature/php8.2-tests branch from fd6c74e to f024474 Compare December 7, 2022 23:22
@localheinz localheinz merged commit 44dc152 into FakerPHP:main Dec 8, 2022
@localheinz
Copy link
Member

Thank you, @chris-doehring, @pimjansen, and @TimWolla!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request pinned
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants