fix: phpstan error in v1.8.8

[ddevsr]

Description
See https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/actions/runs/3197626681/jobs/5221091878

Error: Result of && is always false.
Error: Strict comparison using !== between 0 and 0 will always evaluate to false.
 ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  Line   system/Helpers/array_helper.php                                      
 ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
  51     Result of && is always false.                                        
  51     Strict comparison using !== between 0 and 0 will always evaluate to  
         false.                                                               
 ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Checklist:

• Securely signed commits
• Component(s) with PHPDoc blocks, only if necessary or adds value
• Unit testing, with >80% coverage
• User guide updated
• Conforms to style guide

[datamweb]

A poorly timed release!

[MGatner]

Thanks for the quick response @ddevsr! And the mention + review @datamweb. Waiting on tests.

[ddevsr]

@MGatner Now PHPUnit & PHPStan already passed

[MGatner]

The PHPUnit failure looks unrelated (Predis connection failure m). Merging!

[kenjis]

If $currentIndex is null, empty($currentIndex) is true and $intCurrentIndex !== 0 is false.
If $currentIndex is not null, empty($currentIndex) is false and $intCurrentIndex !== 0 is true.
So the left side is still always false.

[kenjis]

Does this seem better?

        // Grab the current index
        $currentIndex = $indexes ? array_shift($indexes) : null;

        if ($currentIndex === null || (! isset($array[$currentIndex]) && $currentIndex !== '*')) {
            return null;
        }

[MGatner]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize it changed between my review and the merge. This was originally just removing the extraneous part of the conditional.

Yours is better but this still has a lot of cognitive complexity and anyone working on it in the future will need to spend some time figuring it out. Maybe we should break it up into separate return statements? Or extract the second half of the conditional as a variable with a helpful name?

[kenjis]

Okay, I will fix this.

[kenjis]

I sent a PR #6645