Updated folder methods

[jboomer007]

No description provided.

[marclaporte]

@jboomer007

I know it's been a while since your PR. I'd like to clean up list, improve things and get a new release.

Code has changed somewhat since your PR: https://github.com/Garethp/php-ews/commits/master/

Do you think it's still valid?

Thanks!

CC @kambereBr if you can opine)

[kambereBr]

@jboomer007 are you trying to replace the magic method by removing the @method UpdateFolder($request) annotation (line 78, ExchangeWebServices.php) and adding a concrete updateFolder() method instead?

If so, I’m concerned this would cause a major regression:

• Current magic method : full UpdateFolder SOAP support (any folder properties)

• Proposed change : hardcoded to only update DisplayName

That would break code relying on updates to other folder properties.

FYI: Magic method removal has already been started in PR #265, but the goal should be maintaining the same capabilities, not reducing functionality.

Thank you!

[jboomer007]

I forked it and added a new method for updating folder name directly. [brickwall-Logo] James Boomer 816.674.5355 435 Nichols Road Suite 200 Kansas City MO 64112 From: Bruno Kambere ***@***.***> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 8:21 AM To: Garethp/php-ews ***@***.***> Cc: James Boomer ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [Garethp/php-ews] Updated folder methods (PR #249) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/29512462?s=20&v=4]kambereBr left a comment (Garethp/php-ews#249)<#249 (comment)> @jboomer007<https://github.com/jboomer007> are you trying to replace the magic method by removing the @method UpdateFolder($request) annotation (line 78, ExchangeWebServices.php) and adding a concrete updateFolder() method instead? If so, I’m concerned this would cause a major regression: * Current magic method : full UpdateFolder SOAP support (any folder properties) * Proposed change : hardcoded to only update DisplayName That would break code relying on updates to other folder properties. FYI: Magic method removal has already been started in PR #265<#265>, but the goal should be maintaining the same capabilities, not reducing functionality. Thank you! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#249 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2AOYWLSZB456DKXQGNS4T3PWWCFAVCNFSM6AAAAACE4KZ442VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTEMRYGE4DIOJXGM>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>

[Garethp]

While I think there might be scope to have a simpler method for updating folders, I think a method that updates a single property on a folder might be too narrow-scope to fit in with the simpler API usages that I've built. Taking a look at the other update* type methods that I've written, they tend to accept a wider range of changes rather than targeting specific items. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but that would be my take on it at the moment.

[marclaporte]

@jboomer007 @kambereBr any wisdom? :-)

[kambereBr]

@jboomer007 wanted to check back in on this since it's been a while. So based on what @Garethp said, I think we can still keep the rename working, just not hardcode it to only the name. Basically do it the same way updateItems() works, you pass the change in yourself instead of it being fixed to one field.

If you have time to update the PR that way, I'll be happy to see it move forward. If not just let me know and I'll open a new PR with this approach so it's not stuck forever. Either way works for me, just want to get this moving.

Thank you!

[jboomer007]

Here is the update that allows for you to pass an array of properties. Its a rough but works

[jboomer007]

@jboomer007 wanted to check back in on this since it's been a while. So based on what @Garethp said, I think we can still keep the rename working, just not hardcode it to only the name. Basically do it the same way updateItems() works, you pass the change in yourself instead of it being fixed to one field.

If you have time to update the PR that way, I'll be happy to see it move forward. If not just let me know and I'll open a new PR with this approach so it's not stuck forever. Either way works for me, just want to get this moving.

Thank you!

This has been updated. I gave a sample in the documentation for the function