Ignore union types in dockblock definitions #510
Merged
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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #510 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 97.30% 97.47% +0.17%
- Complexity 629 631 +2
============================================
Files 80 80
Lines 1780 1785 +5
============================================
+ Hits 1732 1740 +8
+ Misses 48 45 -3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
micheleorselli
force-pushed
the
fix_union_type_docblock
branch
from
c41acde to
58b9b73
Compare
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This should fix #509. The updated implementation ignores any type defined in docblock which is not a class fqcn
NB: support for union types is still missing we are going to tackle it in separate PR(s)