Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101833
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5b21571e-722f-43e4-5c9c-4def39447e1e@gmail.com>
References: <CAKbGgYjWW18=JeUpirpovc8bAd+ed3T5Fz2GDub+C3uJVck+0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5b21571e-722f-43e4-5c9c-4def39447e1e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2018 02:50:56 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKbGgYhtpyJ-yXFHjqz_ARyPOr1G7uct67J303_Eme0mL377KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e27f46fa3960564fd77f1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposal to run all tests with and without strict_types enabled
From: pslacerda@gmail.com (Pedro Lacerda)

--001a113e27f46fa3960564fd77f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

>
> 2018-02-11 20:34 GMT-03:00 Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@gmx.de>:
>>
>>> Umm, I wonder whether a magic constant (say, `__STRICT_TYPES__`) would
>>> be more appropriate.
>>
>>
Implement `__STRICT_TYPES__` was a breeze, very hackable codebase.

A magic constant indeed sounds more appropriate.



Hi Stanislav,

2018-02-12 2:18 GMT-03:00 Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>:

> I am not sure what would be the advantage of this. Beyond testing
> strict_types functionality itself (which of course should have its own
> unit tests), the tests that test standard functioning of any function
> would either supply correct arguments and then strict_types would be
> irrelevant (provided it works as supposed to, which is tested by its own
> tests) or provide incorrect arguments, and then strict_type tests should
> be different from regular ones since the errors would be different, so
> we'd have to write separate tests.
>

So it's a lot less useful than what I thought.


> The only class of errors that could be found this way would be if we
> somehow made such a mistake in defining the arguments of certain
> function that strict_type version of it doesn't work but regular version
> works fine. Which I guess is possible but does it worth the effort to
> convert all tests? Not sure.
>

But it's still useful, I just fixed a bug exactly about it. Given that
there is very
few tests that use strict_types,  to "convert" all tests with `run-test -t`
is not
too hard. Anyway all tests other than for incorrect arguments should run
correctly with `-t`, so it may be a default for testing. The problem than
is to
know wich tests mus be runned without it.

https://github.com/php/php-src/commit/fddd7e38bd01bc6dbc473166dd6f92
e9f81a6eab

Besides testing, may or may not be valuable expose a `__STRICT_TYPES__`
constant.

https://github.com/php/php-src/compare/master...
pslacerda:experimental/strict_testing?diff=split

-- 
Atenciosamente,
Pedro Lacerda

--001a113e27f46fa3960564fd77f1--