code refactor

[xHeaven]

This is a code refactor. Read the commit messages and descriptions for more information on each commit.

[egulias]

Hi @xHeaven , thanks for the PR.
It does have a lot of changes, I'll be reviewing it.
Meanwhile, please review Psalm errors (you should be able to run it locally too)

ERROR: InvalidPropertyAssignmentValue - src/EmailLexer.php:161:28 - $this->nullToken 
with declared type 'Doctrine\Common\Lexer\Token<int, string>' 
cannot be assigned type 'Doctrine\Common\Lexer\Token<, "">' (see https://psalm.dev/145)
        $this->nullToken = $nullToken;

ERROR: InvalidPropertyAssignmentValue - src/EmailLexer.php:163:26 - $this->current 
with declared type 'Doctrine\Common\Lexer\Token<int, string>' 
cannot be assigned type 'Doctrine\Common\Lexer\Token<, "">' (see https://psalm.dev/145)
        $this->current = $this->previous = $this->nullToken;

ERROR: InvalidPropertyAssignmentValue - src/EmailLexer.php:163:44 - $this->previous 
with declared type 'Doctrine\Common\Lexer\Token<int, string>' 
cannot be assigned type 'Doctrine\Common\Lexer\Token<, "">' (see https://psalm.dev/145)
        $this->current = $this->previous = $this->nullToken;

Thanks!

[xHeaven]

Hey @egulias, the Psalm errors should be fixed.
Apparently, even though the type hint that I've just reverted is absolutely redundant in the EmailLexer, it's needed, because Psalm can't seem to do its static analysis without it.
I suppose that was the original reason for having a dummy variable called $nullToken as well.
Too bad, weird stuff I guess.

[xHeaven]

Is there anything I can do to help successfully execute the currently failing test? I've got 9-ish emails about it so far, let me know if there's anything I can do. @egulias

[egulias]

Hey @xHeaven , apologies for the spam! I didn't realise you were getting the emails too.
The issue is that for some reason I haven't found yet, GitHub's action is not bringing the value of the secret ´CODACY_PROJECT_TOKEN´ (here), that it has worked few days ago when I first introduced it.

Will use this PR to test, you might get more spam, apologies in advance now :).

Still working on the review, thanks for your patience!

[xHeaven]

No worries, keep me updated! :)

[egulias]

Hey. Thanks for waiting.
I have left some comments for you. Many are aesthetics more than anything, that I'd like to keep.
A couple need some conversation.

[xHeaven]

Hey @egulias,

I'm done with the requested changes, would you take a look at it whenever you can?
Also, I've used constructor property promotion in my last commit, is that fine, or would you like to stick with the old-style property definition?

[egulias]

Looks good! Will take the chance to see if I can manually send the coverage results and then will merge.
Thanks for the effort!

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

Merging #364 (5ca02b4) into 4.x (97c28cd) - See PR on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.34% (target: -1.00%)	87.50%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (97c28cd)	691	635	91.90%
Head commit (5ca02b4)	708 (+17)	653 (+18)	92.23% (+0.34%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#364)	24	21	87.50%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

[egulias]

Thanks again!