Skip to content
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

[2.0] Merge master differences in 2.x branch #526

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Feb 8, 2018
Merged

[2.0] Merge master differences in 2.x branch #526

merged 14 commits into from
Feb 8, 2018

Conversation

Jean85
Copy link
Collaborator

@Jean85 Jean85 commented Dec 22, 2017

This PR is intended to port all differences from 1.x to 2.x, so we do not regress on bugs and stuff in the new release. This is a recap of what I've covered so far, with all PR that we merged in master and not on 2.x:

Last master commit merged into 2.0: a997764

@Jean85 Jean85 added this to the Release 2.0 milestone Dec 22, 2017
@Jean85 Jean85 self-assigned this Dec 22, 2017
@@ -4,11 +4,9 @@ php:
- 5.6
- 7.0
- 7.1
- nightly
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You should not delete nightly version. It is not 7.2, it is current dev version, so now it is 7.3. We always should know how our code running on new version of PHP

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I disagree. 7.3 is now very far from being usable, and Travis will tag it while in beta stage, so we can add it at that point. (which will be in at least 8-9 months in the future from now).

@stayallive stayallive changed the title [WIP] Merge master differences in 2.x branch [2.0 ][WIP] Merge master differences in 2.x branch Jan 2, 2018
@stayallive stayallive changed the title [2.0 ][WIP] Merge master differences in 2.x branch [2.0] [WIP] Merge master differences in 2.x branch Jan 2, 2018
@Jean85 Jean85 changed the title [2.0] [WIP] Merge master differences in 2.x branch [2.0] Merge master differences in 2.x branch Jan 2, 2018
@Jean85
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Jean85 commented Jan 2, 2018

Done! No longer WIP, please review!

.scrutinizer.yml Outdated
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ tools:
php_code_coverage: true
external_code_coverage:
timeout: 2400 # There can be another pull request in progress
runs: 3 # PHP 5.6 + PHP 7.0 + PHP 7.1
runs: 3 # PHP 5.6 + PHP 7.0 + PHP 7.1 + PHP 7.2
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't this be 4? According to the comment and the count of the option it was 3 before adding PHP 7.2

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep, that's right!! Fixing it now

@@ -239,14 +252,14 @@ In the following example, we'll use a middleware:
public function handle($request, Closure $next)
{
if (app()->bound('sentry')) {
/** @var \Raven\Client $sentry */
/** @var \Raven_Client $sentry */
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it is a mistake

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yep it is! Fixing it, thanks for spotting it!

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Umh... Wait a minute... It's like that because I copy-pasted from master, but simply replacing that may not work... The docs need to be fully updated to how the 2.x client will work, so maybe we can postpone that to a later PR... Also, @stayallive knows that Laravel integration way better than me!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will for sure take a look at this very soon!

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Jean85
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Jean85 commented Jan 19, 2018

I've resolved conficts. Can we merge this now? I (and @ste93cry too I believe) would like to resolve the docs issues for the 2.0 in a separate PR

Copy link
Collaborator

@stayallive stayallive left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. Will look at the docs separately.

@nokitakaze
Copy link
Contributor

Erm, maybe we should wait until tests are completed successfully?

@Jean85
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Jean85 commented Jan 19, 2018

I did a mistake during the merge, it should be green now!

@Jean85
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Jean85 commented Feb 7, 2018

I've merged more stuff from master in this PR, it's now up to date.

@nokitakaze can you approve this? I wouldn't like to have more conflicts to solve here...

@ste93cry
Copy link
Collaborator

ste93cry commented Feb 7, 2018

@Jean85 what about leaving this PR open until 2.x is ready to be released in alpha so that we can track the differences between the this branch and master? I know it would be difficult to fix conflicts, but maybe it's better to do it one time for all

@Jean85
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Jean85 commented Feb 7, 2018

It's not too difficult, the pain could be that we would be having PRs targeting wrong stuff or missing regression tests that we already have in here.

I can easily reopen a new PR like this one to start tracking new differences and merge it later, but this is already big IMO.

@Jean85 Jean85 merged commit 1d61430 into 2.0 Feb 8, 2018
@Jean85 Jean85 deleted the merge-master branch February 8, 2018 08:25
@Jean85 Jean85 mentioned this pull request Feb 8, 2018
@Jean85 Jean85 mentioned this pull request May 3, 2018
27 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants