-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 550
Make sure function scope is set in closure in constant expression #4827
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
Open
ruudk
wants to merge
1
commit into
phpstan:2.1.x
Choose a base branch
from
ruudk:make-sure-function-scope-is-set-for-callable-in-attribute
base: 2.1.x
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+93
−1
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
83 changes: 83 additions & 0 deletions
83
tests/PHPStan/Analyser/data/closure-type-in-constant-expression-php85.php
This file contains hidden or 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
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ | ||
| <?php | ||
|
|
||
| namespace ClosureTypeInConstantExpressionPhp85; | ||
|
|
||
| use Attribute; | ||
| use PhpParser\Node\Expr\StaticCall; | ||
| use PHPStan\Analyser\Scope; | ||
| use PHPStan\Reflection\MethodReflection; | ||
| use PHPStan\Reflection\Native\NativeParameterReflection; | ||
| use PHPStan\Reflection\ParameterReflection; | ||
| use PHPStan\Reflection\PassedByReference; | ||
| use PHPStan\Type\CallableType; | ||
| use PHPStan\Type\FloatType; | ||
| use PHPStan\Type\Type; | ||
| use PHPStan\Type\MixedType; | ||
| use function PHPStan\Testing\assertType; | ||
|
|
||
| class StaticMethodParameterClosureTypeExtension implements \PHPStan\Type\StaticMethodParameterClosureTypeExtension | ||
| { | ||
|
|
||
| public function isStaticMethodSupported(MethodReflection $methodReflection, ParameterReflection $parameter): bool | ||
| { | ||
| if ($methodReflection->getName() !== '__construct') { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if ($methodReflection->getDeclaringClass()->getName() !== Idempotency::class) { | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return $parameter->getName() === 'key'; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public function getTypeFromStaticMethodCall( | ||
| MethodReflection $methodReflection, | ||
| StaticCall $methodCall, | ||
| ParameterReflection $parameter, | ||
| Scope $scope | ||
| ): ?Type { | ||
| // Just some garbage, that doesn't throw an error anyway. | ||
| return new CallableType( | ||
| [ | ||
| new NativeParameterReflection('test', false, new FloatType(), PassedByReference::createNo(), false, null), | ||
| ], | ||
| new MixedType() | ||
| ); | ||
|
|
||
| // What we need here, is a way to find out that this is being called from `__invoke` | ||
| // using $scope->getFunctionName() | ||
| // Then we would want to find out the 1st parameter of __invoke | ||
| // It would be SomeCommand. | ||
| // Then we would want to return that the callable signature is `static function (SomeCommand): string` | ||
| // But I'm not sure if this is the correct extension point at all... | ||
| // It seems it's not. | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| class SomeCommand {} | ||
|
|
||
| #[Attribute(flags: Attribute::TARGET_METHOD)] | ||
| final readonly class Idempotency | ||
| { | ||
| /** | ||
| * @param Closure(object): string $key | ||
| */ | ||
| public function __construct( | ||
| public Closure $key, | ||
| ) { | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| class SomeHandler | ||
| { | ||
| #[Idempotency(key: static function (object $command) : string { | ||
| assertType(SomeCommand::class, $command); | ||
|
|
||
| return 'hello'; | ||
| })] | ||
| public function __invoke(SomeCommand $command): void | ||
| { | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do you feel that? Did you try to implement the logic here along with the change to NodeScopeResolver to see if my suggestion worked?