Create a IsA expression

[hgraca]

This will allow for testing if a class extends or
implements another code unit, anywhere in the inheritance tree.

[raffaelecarelle]

Hello, this PR is useful. When can it merge?

[micheleorselli]

Hello, this PR is useful. When can it merge?

When we used to support older php versions we wanted to avoid relying on checks triggering the autoload and parse the code statically. Not sure it still makes sense, so potentially this is a good addition. At this point I am wondering if we should just update Extend/NotExtend Implement/NotImplement. wdyt @AlessandroMinoccheri @fain182?

[hgraca]

@micheleorselli

avoid relying on checks triggering the autoload

That is why I opened this other PR but never got it merged.
This would effectively put the decision on the user; if they wanted to use an expression that would need to trigger the autoload, they would be able to, which is not the case at the moment.

That PR just adds an IF statement so we don't try to define PHPARKITECT_COMPOSER_INSTALL more than once, which triggers PHP errors.
I don't see a negative point in merging it, but if it is not desirable, let me know so I can close that PR.

[AlessandroMinoccheri]

For me, the PR is adding value.
What is your idea of extending Extend/NotExtend and Implement/NotImplement @micheleorselli ?

Maybe we can consider both ways to understand what is the correct one.

[micheleorselli]

As of now, there is a known limitation when we parse files building ClassDescription objects as we do not walk the inheritance tree, so the analisys stops at the class we currently parsing. This means that, given a ClassDescription object, the extends and implement attributes contains only classes that are directly extended or implemented.

If I have a rule saying "class X should not extend class Y" is that the expected behaviour? I doubt that 🤔

One possibile approach would be having two rules like

• Extends, which work using is_a and triggering autoload
• ExtendsDirectly which behaves like the current Extends

this also would work for implements for interfaces, use for traits, and so on

wdty? @AlessandroMinoccheri @fain182

[fain182]

When we used to support older php versions we wanted to avoid relying on checks triggering the autoload and parse the code statically.

I think we need to ensure that autoloading works with all our installation methods (Composer, PHAR, Docker); otherwise, it's a good idea. (I'm even open to deprecating some of the installation methods.)

[hgraca]

@micheleorselli I made some necessary updates to this PR, it all seems to be green, please feel free to squash&merge or ask for changes.

[micheleorselli]

If I got it right here we need the class to implement at least one of the fqcn specified. I'm ok with that but I was wondering if we can make it explicit in some way. For instance we could either:

• make IsA accepting one parameter instead of an array (but it is less expressive since you cannot say "a class is A or B")
• change the name to something like IsOneOf or something similar

[hgraca]

I changed the name to IsOneOf

[micheleorselli]

if possibile I would avoid creating test classes here. You could either:

1. create fixtures directory like we did in the E2E section of the tests
2. rely on vfsstream and create the classes only in memory. This also means you'll have to create and register a custom autoloader. (that would be my preferred choice but if it is too much work no 1. is fine

[hgraca]

I moved the dummy classes declaration to inside the class test itself, this avoids creating the dummy classes files, keeps the whole test self-contained and avoids the complexity of using a vfs.

Let me know if this is ok.

[hgraca]

@micheleorselli I rebased and squashed the previous fixup commits and created 2 more, one for each comment.

let me know if anything else is needed from my side.

[AlessandroMinoccheri]

Can we avoid variadic parameter?
We removed it from other expression to add the exclude parameter if needed

[hgraca]

Sure.
I dropped the commit that renamed the expression, and applied the previous suggestion where we only accept one fqcn to test, instead of the variadic.

let me know if anything else is needed from my side.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
1 New issue
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[hgraca]

@AlessandroMinoccheri @micheleorselli
Anything else i need to do here?

[AlessandroMinoccheri]

What do you think @micheleorselli? For me we can merge it.

[micheleorselli]

yup, all good for me. Thank you @hgraca 🎉