Use current PHP version in CallToFunctionParametersRuleTest

[herndlm]

Working on something in FunctionCallParametersCheck which is tested via CallToFunctionParametersRuleTest but realised that the PHP version was hard-coded to 8.0 which is blocking me there. Also: bigger range of tests over multiple PHP versions, yay :) in general there seem to be many rules where similar things could be done.

Unfortunately this causes a small conflict in 2.0.x apparently.

UPDATE: Markus made me aware of #3662 and I adapted the named arguments test to be skipped exactly the same way to avoid troubles there.

[phpstan-bot]

This pull request has been marked as ready for review.

[herndlm]

ah, I just saw that CallMethodsRuleTest uses the current PHP version dynamically, but for the named arguments test it forces it to 8.0. Which method are we preferring? I see it has a disallow-named-arguments.php test, maybe that's the way to go then. Or something like marking the test skipped if the PHP version is too low? 🤔 😅

for the bug fix / feature PR I'm preparing it doesn't matter. I just need to be able to have a dynamic PHP version in this test file.

[staabm]

Please note: we are working on the same files

#3662

[herndlm]

Please note: we are working on the same files

#3662

Oh, not good.. The scope dependent php version functionality is 2.x only, right? I'm also OK with the skipping approach of course, the constructor is conflicting any way..

[staabm]

The scope dependent php version functionality is 2.x only, right?

yes

I'm also OK with the skipping approach of course, the constructor is conflicting any way..

no its fine. lets see which one is merged earlier :)

[staabm]

ahh this looks great now, thanks

[herndlm]

ahh this looks great now, thanks

for a moment I thought I broke gitlab though with all my back and forth .. xD apparently it wasn't happy with me force-pushing back to an old state hmm. anyway, closer to yours now, yeah

[herndlm]

btw I have a PR prepared which adapts a rule dealing with an high-upvoted bug. but it would need this small test change first. would be great if this can be merged :)

[herndlm]

@ondrejmirtes after this I was planning to fix phpstan/phpstan#11418, or do you consider that to be a new feature, then I can just skip this and work on 2.x after #3662 was merged.

I don't want to pressure you, just trying to figure out what the best approach is to avoid conflicts/issues.

[ondrejmirtes]

This #3662 basically fixes the same problem, so in order to avoid conflicts, I'm closing this. Thanks.