Docs do not match functionality

[Loupax]

Q	A
Doc fix?	yes
New docs?	no
Applies to	3
Fixed tickets	None

The configuration section specifies that one of the requirements that need to be met to automatically dump configuration is the constructor not requiring parameters.

The code that handles this though does not match this description:

/**
 * {@inheritdoc}
 */
public function getConfiguration(array $config, ContainerBuilder $container)
{
    $reflected = new \ReflectionClass($this);
    $namespace = $reflected->getNamespaceName();

    $class = $namespace.'\\Configuration';
    if (class_exists($class)) {
        $r = new \ReflectionClass($class);
        $container->addResource(new FileResource($r->getFileName()));

        // Notice here that it just checks if the __construct method exists,
        // the arguments are irrelevant
        if (!method_exists($class, '__construct')) {
            $configuration = new $class();

            return $configuration;
        }
    }
}

[psampaz]

👍

[xabbuh]

"extend" sounds strange when we talk about methods imo. What about saying something like "and does have a constructor"?

[Loupax]

It works either way, I just used extend because this still works if the parent Configuration class has a __construct method itself.

Still I agree that "does not have a constructor" makes the meaning very clear. Waiting for any other feedback before changing the PR :)

[psampaz]

👍 for "does not have a constructor"

[Loupax]

Cannot understand why the CI test failed. Is there a way to re-run it without re-commiting?

[wouterj]

@Loupax don't worry about the CI test. That's an issue that is not related to this PR (and in fact, already fixed on the 2.3 branch).

👍 from me for merging this PR. Thanks for fixing the docs!

[xabbuh]

Thank you @Loupax.