Remove spread support from Features::include()
#39
+12
−15
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
renatonascalves
approved these changes
May 8, 2025
|
|
||
| ### Changed | ||
|
|
||
| - PHPCS: The minimum PHP version is now 8.2. | ||
| - Unit test: `WidgetFeatureTest` test works por PHP 8.3 and 8.4. | ||
| - `Features::include()` no longer accepts a spread of individual `Feature` instances. Use something more specific like `Group` or `Ordered` to include multiple features at once. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm pretty sure this is a breaking change. So we should bump the version for this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it definitely is breaking. I think #40 is a good candidate to include in the next release for the same reason.
# Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Inspired by the comment from @renatonascalves here: #34 (comment)
Also, by an internal discussion about how to break large features into smaller feature classes while still communicating their relationship to one another.
The
FeaturesandGroupvocabulary already exists to describe multiple features. Allowing an arbitrary number of individual feature classes to be passed seems to me to discourage using that vocabulary.I also updated a couple lines in the CHANGELOG to be more consistent with previous entries and removed a couple that didn't seem relevant for package users.
Notes for reviewers
None.