Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[5.6] __set_state exists in Carbon #23464

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 9, 2018
Merged

Conversation

kylekatarnls
Copy link
Contributor

__set_state should not be overridden

__set_state should not be overridden
@svenluijten
Copy link
Contributor

If it shouldn't be overridden it should've been final or private to begin with. And a change in public API would normally warrant a major version bump (2.0.0) according to semver.

@olafnorge
Copy link

May we just fix it and discuss later?

@svenluijten
Copy link
Contributor

@olafnorge sure, once the tests pass again.

@kylekatarnls
Copy link
Contributor Author

kylekatarnls commented Mar 9, 2018

Yes quick-revert here: #23466

As lowest setup cannot pass without __set_state(), the __set_state() removing must be done after with also a Carbon minimal version bumping.

@kylekatarnls
Copy link
Contributor Author

With Carbon version update the tests pass and so __set_state could be simply removed. So this PR is a better resolution in my opinion.

@kylekatarnls kylekatarnls mentioned this pull request Mar 9, 2018
@kylekatarnls kylekatarnls changed the title __set_state exists in Carbon [5.6] __set_state exists in Carbon Mar 9, 2018
@torrancemiller
Copy link

Need this now. This brought down my dev environment. :(

@antonioribeiro
Copy link
Contributor

@kylekatarnls is the usage of __set_state being tested?

@kylekatarnls
Copy link
Contributor Author

kylekatarnls commented Mar 9, 2018

__set_state in Carbon is exactly the same code as in this override and yes we tested it here: https://github.com/briannesbitt/Carbon/blob/master/tests/Carbon/InstanceTest.php#L61

@LukeTowers
Copy link
Contributor

@kylekatarnls is that PR going to be backported to 5.5 LTS?

@kylekatarnls
Copy link
Contributor Author

@LukeTowers > @taylorotwell did it.

What is the workflow for master/5.7, should it be this commit merged or should I submit an other PR?

@LukeTowers
Copy link
Contributor

Awesome, thanks for the update!

@Kyslik
Copy link
Contributor

Kyslik commented Mar 11, 2018

This might have break something; see this SO question.

@GrahamCampbell
Copy link
Member

Always submit PRs to the earliest branch on the framework. We regularly merge 5.5 -> 5.6 -> master. :)

@kylekatarnls kylekatarnls deleted the patch-1 branch March 12, 2018 08:00
@kylekatarnls
Copy link
Contributor Author

@Kyslik 32bit problem, fixed in 1.24.2

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants