Drop MatchAssertEqualsExpectedTypeRector #517
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
samsonasik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2025
This reverts commit a5fc689.
TomasVotruba
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2025
* Revert "Drop MatchAssertEqualsExpectedTypeRector (#517)" This reverts commit a5fc689. * Revert "[CodeQuality] Rename MatchAssertSameExpectedTypeRector to MatchAssertEqualsExpectedTypeRector to only apply on assertEquals (#514)" This reverts commit 84fe73a. * add test * [ci-review] Rector Rectify --------- Co-authored-by: GitHub Action <actions@github.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
@TomasVotruba after test extensively on our project, this rule is cause more error than good, because it conflict with
AssertEqualsToSameRectorwhich assertEquals than marked as assertSame, and cause invalid result.so I remove this rule :)
Ref for history of reasoning: