Added test-case covering property referenced via "static" keyword #66
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
staabm
commented
Jun 26, 2023
| 'somePublicStaticProperty' | ||
| ); | ||
| yield [ | ||
| [__DIR__ . '/Fixture/LocallyUsedStaticPropertyViaStatic.php'], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
btw: I wondered why we separate test-classes between Fixture and Source in this repo.
it might make sense todo so in a rector package, but I think its not useful in a phpstan rule/extension package?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right, it can be only /Fixture here, if a file is provided in list of files analysed by PHPStan.
staabm
changed the title
Probably fortunate accident 😄 thanks for checking, test for new case is always welcomed 👏 |
This pull request was closed.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Initially I added this new test-case, as I was sure when looking at the implementation that it would fail.
turns out it passes, and I don't know why. but as it works as expected lets add this test-coverage :)