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

Do not consider isset checks on static properties as redundant #5525

Merged

Conversation

weirdan
Copy link
Collaborator

@weirdan weirdan commented Mar 30, 2021

Unlike normal properties, static properties do not have a prescribed initialization sequence, so they can always be uninitialized (or unset). Thus isset() checks on them are never redundant.

Fixes #5489

Unlike normal properties, static properties do not have a prescribed
initialization sequence, so they can always be uninitialized (or unset).
Thus `isset()` checks on them are never redundant.

Fixes vimeo#5489
@muglug muglug merged commit cd002e6 into vimeo:master Mar 30, 2021
@muglug
Copy link
Collaborator

muglug commented Mar 30, 2021

Thanks!

muglug added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2021
muglug added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2021
muglug pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 25, 2021
* Do not consider isset checks on static properties as redundant

Unlike normal properties, static properties do not have a prescribed
initialization sequence, so they can always be uninitialized (or unset).
Thus `isset()` checks on them are never redundant.

Fixes #5489

* Fix issue with nullable is_static
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.

Invalid RedundantPropertyInitializationCheck for static singleton properties
2 participants