You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Mar 3, 2023. It is now read-only.
If I install this plugin at commit #ddaa71b (or, from dev-master in general) and run blt validate:phpcs I get a pretty minimal set of issues returned. On the other hand, if I install at ^1 and land on 1.0.0 I get dozens of additional issues.
From my manual code review, it would appear that the 1.0.0 version gives a much more accurate representation of what's "going on" in the codebase.
I'm concerned that something that has been merged since the 1.0.0 release has caused a regression.
I have customer files I can share internally with you @danepowell and some code bases to look at that I can't post here, but I do worry that something is up!
For context:
dev-master returns roughly 20 lines of output
^1 returns roughly 300 lines of output (on the exact same codebase with no other changes other than changing the acquia/blt-phpcs version)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think you'll need to inspect the changes to composer.lock (and anything else in your project) when requiring different versions of the plugin. But I can't imagine any scenario in which this is due to a change in the plugin. As you observed (and as can be confirmed by a diff), there are essentially no changes in master: v1.0.0...master
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
If I install this plugin at commit #ddaa71b (or, from dev-master in general) and run blt validate:phpcs I get a pretty minimal set of issues returned. On the other hand, if I install at ^1 and land on 1.0.0 I get dozens of additional issues.
From my manual code review, it would appear that the 1.0.0 version gives a much more accurate representation of what's "going on" in the codebase.
I'm concerned that something that has been merged since the 1.0.0 release has caused a regression.
I have customer files I can share internally with you @danepowell and some code bases to look at that I can't post here, but I do worry that something is up!
For context:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: