StaticReflectionClass PHP7.2 issue #822
Conversation
|
The first commit is a tests only situation where we should see PHP7.1 pass but PHP7.2 fail. |
|
This looks like a PHP 7.2 BC break, have you reported it? https://3v4l.org/7igHL |
|
@Majkl578 yep - it was reported in php/php-src#2363 (comment) - I guess the comment there suggests that the rollback should have gone to master too. |
|
Relevant: Roave/BetterReflection#317 |
| if (version_compare(phpversion(), '7.2', '<')) { | ||
| include __DIR__ . '/legacy/StaticReflectionClass.php'; | ||
| } | ||
| else { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's do the version check in a trait definition and just use that trait in this class to swap out the method.
|
Thanks @Ocramius that's super simple and appears to work for both 7.1 and 7.2. Yay! |
|
@Ocramius You are a genius. Thank you! |
|
I'd rather wait for PHP to get this fixed on their side... There's still time to fix it before 7.2 goes stable. |
|
But this won't work for 5.5 will it? |
|
5.5 is not supported anymore?
…On 2 Nov 2017 17:11, "Kris Vanderwater" ***@***.***> wrote:
But this won't work for 5.5 will it?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#822 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAJakK_4ZuDuW6yq_LQ7vgfh2C6ItlT6ks5syem-gaJpZM4QP4p_>
.
|
|
Right, I was making the point for Drupal which is still supporting 5.5 but would also like to support 7.2. The trait based approach (with an include for the 7.2 specific code) is the best solution for our needs I think. |
|
So PHP have decided to rollback the BC break. |
Unfortunately PHP7.2 \ReflectionClass has slightly different semantics which means that \Doctrine\Common\Reflection\StaticReflectionClass has issues working on both PHP7.1 (and earlier) and PHP7.2.
The error you get on PHP7.2 is:
Declaration of Doctrine\Common\Reflection\StaticReflectionClass::newInstance($args) should be compatible with ReflectionClass::newInstance(...$args)An earlier PR on this problem was #775 (review)