-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 569
Use phpstan instead of scrutinizer's own checker #569
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
Conversation
|
Cool, thanks! Will merge after #566 to avoid broken builds %) |
simPod
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These reports are often handy but now they're gone. Wouldn't it be better to remove problematic failure conditions rather than fully disabling scrutinizer-run?
- 'issues.severity(>= MAJOR).new.exists' # New issues of major or higher severity
- 'project.metric_change("scrutinizer.test_coverage", < 0)' # Code Coverage decreased from previous inspection|
Oh, sorry, this isn't finished yet--I only opened a PR because the branches don't seem to run checks... |
Absolutely; I'm trying to figure out how to generate the reports from our tools instead of Scrutnizer's black box crap. |
|
Superseded by #583 👍 |


Experimenting with replacing Scrutinizer's proprietary checker with PHPStan.
This doesn't work yet--supposedly any tool that implements the
general-checkstyleformat can replace Scrutinizer's own checks, but while Scrutinizer does parse the new data, it doesn't seem to display it in its report. Please let me know if you have any ideas...