TernaryOperatorSpacesFixer - fix for discovering ":" correctly #5065
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
SpacePossum
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2020
|
Thank you @kubawerlos. |
|
@SpacePossum This PR causes warning on PHP 5.6 because of the declare strict types. I've prepped a fix: #5100. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In the original code for each occurrence of
?it was assumed that the next:is the other part of the operator - which is not always true - see the latter test added toTernaryOperatorSpacesFixerTest.php.Also, when there was no whitespace before
?the operator was counted twice, because:?was found at indexnn, so the?was moved to positionn + 1n + 1discovered the very same?once again and increased$ternaryLevelfor the second time.This scenario is covered by the first test added to
TernaryOperatorSpacesFixerTest.php- the second:(the one fromswitch) was recognized as part of the ternary operator.THE FIX:
As it might look as overkill it is actually copied from #4021 - so it will be reused there and I believe is quite clean and - especially - bulletproof solution.