[5.2] Non-static methods called as static from object context

[Denitz]

Summary of Changes

Non-static methods called as static from object context

Testing Instructions

Apply patch

Actual result BEFORE applying this Pull Request

See IDE warnings

Expected result AFTER applying this Pull Request

No IDE warnings.

Link to documentations

Please select:

• Documentation link for docs.joomla.org:

• No documentation changes for docs.joomla.org needed

• Pull Request link for manual.joomla.org:

• No documentation changes for manual.joomla.org needed

[HLeithner]

This Pull request changes the behavior. self calls the function defined by it "self" or "parent" class but not if defined in child class.
Example: https://3v4l.org/TtuJ3

<?php

class a {
    function x() {
        echo 'x' . chr(10);
    }
}

class b extends a {
    function y() {
        echo 'y' . chr(10);
        self::x();    
        $this->x();    
    }
    
}

class c extends b {
    function z() {
        echo 'z' . chr(10);
        self::y();
    }

    function x() {
        echo 'x2' . chr(10);
    }
}

echo (new c)->z();

Output:

z
y
x
x2

if someone has time to evaluate what we really want it would be great.

[HLeithner]

This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.1-dev.

[Hackwar]

I disagree that this is a b/c break. Yes, in theory the behavior can be different, but in reality this is simply super old code (The line in the banner table for example is at least 14 years old.) and at that time the code quality wasn't the best... With a codereview this could simply be merged.

[Hackwar]

Ok, I finally found it. The line in the banner table was introduced close to 15 years ago in one of those major rewrites: 81e0102#diff-220ad14bb0e7e21591b2575dfb72a5edb7bfbffff4d8069de75e7bcaf8874acdR118

[crommie]

In what situation(s) should we see the warnings?

---

_{This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/41661.}

[HLeithner]

This pull request has been automatically rebased to 5.2-dev.

[Hackwar]

Thank you for your contribution @Denitz!