Generic/JumbledIncrementer: fix inconsistency

[jrfnl]

Description

The name of the sniff uses "Incrementer", while the error message uses "Incrementor". This feels inconsistent.

Based on some light research, both terms can be used interchangable, so I'm proposing to make the error message consistent with the sniff name, as changing the sniff name would be a breaking change.

Suggested changelog entry

Generic.CodeAnalysis.JumbledIncrementer: fix typo in warning message.

Related issues/external references

Seen while reviewing #385

[rodrigoprimo]

I'm not sure which is best, incrementors or incrementers, and I was not able to find either in the main dictionaries.

Regardless of that, I agree that the proposed change improves the consistency of the code. It is also worth mentioning that the original PMD project, which was used as a reference for this sniff, uses incrementer: https://docs.pmd-code.org/latest/pmd_rules_java_errorprone.html#jumbledincrementer.

I have two comments that I don't think need to be addressed in this PR necessarily, but are things that occurred to me while reviewing this PR that I wanted to share in case you think it is worth addressing them:

The sniff code uses the word incrementor one more time. Should it also be changed to incrementer?

PHP_CodeSniffer/src/Standards/Generic/Sniffs/CodeAnalysis/JumbledIncrementerSniff.php

Line 70 in 7ec55a9

// Find incrementors for outer loop.

• This sniff also flags decrementers. Since we are already updating the error message, should it be changed to include decrementers as well?

[jrfnl]

Thanks @DannyvdSluijs and @rodrigoprimo for looking this PR over.

The sniff code uses the word incrementor one more time. Should it also be changed to incrementer?

Good catch. Done.

This sniff also flags decrementers. Since we are already updating the error message, should it be changed to include decrementers as well?

I did consider this, but then, it may not even be an incrementer/decrementer:

$a = 'a';
for ($i = ''; strlen($i) < 10; $i . $a);

So to use the right word in all circumstances, I believe the logic in the sniff would need to be adjusted to take the operation being executed in the third expression into account. That's a much bigger change and something which I believe would be more appropriate to address in the context of #441.

Does that make sense ?

[rodrigoprimo]

So to use the right word in all circumstances, I believe the logic in the sniff would need to be adjusted to take the operation being executed in the third expression into account. That's a much bigger change and something which I believe would be more appropriate to address in the context of #441.

Does that make sense ?

Sounds good to me. Thanks.