Normalize phpenum type #1375
Closed
Normalize phpenum type #1375
Conversation
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
shmax
commented
May 4, 2023
spawnia
requested changes
May 5, 2023
|
Thanks for the comments. 👍 I'm happy with this if you are. |
spawnia
approved these changes
May 5, 2023
Nah, I don't think there's any rush; in the meantime, I can just continue to access the public I am curious to know how you might propose to preserve bc... |
|
Merged latest. Still no rush, or anything, but it should be ready for next release. |
shmax
force-pushed
the
normalize-phpenum-type
branch
from
da27ac4 to
fac6205
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I'm starting to make heavier use of
PhpEnumType, and its lack of configurability is starting to become an issue. Someone added support for a custom name recently, but I need the same support for 'description', and rather than start an optional argument chain I thought I'd see what you think about just doing the same config-based setup we do for everything else. In the spirit of brevity, I added a staticfromPathhelper that will allow that same one-liner feel (or we can ditch it). A backwards-compatible solution using a union type on the first argument may be possible, but I figure it might be best to just rip the band-aid off. Let me know what you think.