[5.5] allows array or multiple params for hasAny helper

[bbashy]

Make this the same as has() allowing array or params

Closes #22917

[Dylan-DPC-zz]

Can you add tests?

[bbashy]

@Dylan-DPC It's an existing function that has tests already. has() and hasAny() are now equal and have the same tests.

[deleugpn]

If you're changing the code, it means the current implementation isn't sufficient for a use-case and would require test for it to avoid regression, so Dylan is right.

[bbashy]

@Dylan-DPC @deleugpn There you go lads.

[sisve]

This is a change to a method signature, thus a breaking change and should not go into the 5.5 release. Perhaps the 5.6 branch?

The problem shows itself when you have classes that derives from Request and overrides the hasAny method.

Warning: Declaration of CustomReques::hasAny(...$keys) should be compatible with Request::hasAny($key)

[crynobone]

Could just avoid the breaking change.

public function hasAny(...$keys)
{
    if (isset($keys[0]) && is_array($keys[0])) {
        $keys = $keys[0];
    }

[sisve]

I agree that the method signature could be kept and avoid that specific breaking change; but some further digging shows that we already support arrays to Request::hasAny(), so a change like this would introduce other problems.

[sisve]

Only one of the tests actually fails with the current code; $this->assertTrue($request->hasAny(['name', 'email']));. The problem is that it only fails in one place, not another. This is a screaming red flag; 1) we have existing functionality that supports arrays, and 2) the changes to the tests looks organized, but in reality they are (mostly) not verifying any new behavior.

The problem is that Request::hasAny, with arrays as the use-case has them, isn't clearly documented and we're now trying to change it. There's even use-cases like Request::hasAny(['a1', 'a2'], ['b1', 'b2'], ['c1', 'c2']), which complicates things further. This is syntax that already works today. Changing it could break things.

[taylorotwell]

I agree that it should probably support both but would definitely need to go to 5.6 and appears we need some test improvements?