Closed BlakeWilliams closed 8 years ago
Not that this should hold up review, but presumably this can't be merged until #21 is, right?
If I can have my way I'll merge it in PR order.
This PR probably needs more discussion between @pbrisbin, @mrb, and I.
@fhwang why do you think this is dependent on that? This PR intends to remove a dead path. So should be by-definition behavior neutral.
We need @mrb or @brynary to weigh in if this is safe to do yet.
My understanding is that new(ish) CLI and dot-com are updated to pass include-paths, so any engines that only support that approach will work fine.
There can be, however, older CLI images still in use in the wild and if they get a hold of this new phpcodesniffer engine image, things would likely break as the older CLI will pass in only exclude-paths.
Now, if that results in things blowing up (which I think it would), I'd be totally fine with it -- the first thing users typically do (or the first thing we'd suggest in a GH issue) is update. If, however, it results in bad (but not obviously broken) behavior, I'd want to be more careful.
Yeah, actually I think I'm missing some context. It sounds like this is currently broken for people with an updated CLI and without any default extensions configured? I agree @pbrisbin that this should be behavior neutral if you have an up-to-date CLI.
include_paths
and only use include_paths
since exclude_paths
is deprecated.Closing due to staleness.
This removes the check for the inclusion of
include_paths
in favor of always usinginclude_paths
. This is because the use ofexclude_paths
for engines has been deprecated.