Closes #7126: PHPStan ~ Discourage wp option function

[Miraeld]

Description

Fixes #7126
Nothing impacts uers.

Type of change

• Chore

Detailed scenario

None

Technical description

Documentation

This pull request includes changes to update and expand the PHPStan rules for discouraging the use of certain WordPress functions. The key changes involve renaming a rule class, adding new discouraged functions, and updating the corresponding tests.

Updates to PHPStan rules:

• phpstan.neon.dist: Renamed the rule DiscourageUpdateOptionUsage to DiscourageWPOptionUsage to reflect the broader scope of discouraged functions.
• tests/phpstan/Rules/DiscourageWPOptionUsage.php: Created a new rule class DiscourageWPOptionUsage that discourages the use of update_option, get_option, and delete_option functions, replacing the previous DiscourageUpdateOptionUsage rule.
• tests/phpstan/Rules/DiscourageUpdateOptionUsage.php: Removed the old rule class DiscourageUpdateOptionUsage.

Updates to tests:

• tests/phpstan/tests/Rules/DiscourageWPOptionUsageTest.php: Added new test cases for the DiscourageWPOptionUsage rule to verify that errors are correctly reported for delete_option, get_option, and update_option functions.
• tests/phpstan/tests/Rules/DiscourageUpdateOptionUsageTest.php: Removed the old test class DiscourageUpdateOptionUsageTest.
• Added new test data files for DiscourageWPOptionUsageTest:
  • tests/phpstan/tests/data/DiscourageWPOptionUsageTest/use-delete-option.php: Test data for delete_option function.
  • tests/phpstan/tests/data/DiscourageWPOptionUsageTest/use-get-option.php: Test data for get_option function.
  • tests/phpstan/tests/data/DiscourageWPOptionUsageTest/use-update-option.php: Test data for update_option function.
• Removed old test data file tests/phpstan/tests/data/DiscourageUpdateOptionUsageTest/not-valid.php.

New dependencies

None

Risks

None

Mandatory Checklist

Code validation

• I validated all the Acceptance Criteria. If possible, provide screenshots or videos.
• I triggered all changed lines of code at least once without new errors/warnings/notices.
• I implemented built-in tests to cover the new/changed code.

Code style

• I wrote a self-explanatory code about what it does.
• I protected entry points against unexpected inputs.
• I did not introduce unnecessary complexity.
• Output messages (errors, notices, logs) are explicit enough for users to understand the issue and are actionnable.

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
Report missing for dd33f7b1	✅ ∅ (target: 50.00%)

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (dd33f7b)	Report Missing	Report Missing	Report Missing
Head commit (cd63845)	38228	16731	43.77%

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#7155)	0	0	∅ (not applicable)

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

Footnotes

1. Codacy didn't receive coverage data for the commit, or there was an error processing the received data. Check your integration for errors and validate that your coverage setup is correct. ↩

[wordpressfan]

@Miraeld May I ask why do u add all of those ignores? the baseline idea doesn't work here? or maybe I miss something, can u plz explain?

[Miraeld]

@Miraeld May I ask why do u add all of those ignores? the baseline idea doesn't work here? or maybe I miss something, can u plz explain?

I've used the baseline system, check the last commit.

I haven't added any ignore, I've refactored the previous "update_option()" rule to include more functions related to options and that we can and should manage with our own Option object.

[CrochetFeve0251]

@Miraeld I didn't see any test outside a class. This is a test we need as we don't want to raise the alert in that scenario.