php 8.0 return types compatible

[maikelohcfg]

• Update methods native return types
• require php ^8.0

[adrienfr]

Hi,

You have some "function(): string" and "function() : string" (here and here), I think the "spaceless" version is best, "function(): type".
Can we keep compatibility with PHP 7.4 ? No need for the :mixed type and :void / :string are well supported with PHP 7.4.

[maikelohcfg]

Hi,

You have some "function(): string" and "function() : string" (here and here), I think the "spaceless" version is best, "function(): type". Can we keep compatibility with PHP 7.4 ? No need for the :mixed type and :void / :string are well supported with PHP 7.4.

Hi, it is done .

[adrienfr]

Hi,
You have some "function(): string" and "function() : string" (here and here), I think the "spaceless" version is best, "function(): type". Can we keep compatibility with PHP 7.4 ? No need for the :mixed type and :void / :string are well supported with PHP 7.4.

Hi, it is done .

Thanks @maikelohcfg !

[maikelohcfg]

Hi @adrienfr it is done

[adrienfr]

Hi @stevelacey & @beberlei, do you need anything else for this PR to pass?

[Chris53897]

@maikelohcfg Thanks for the PR. I do not see any :mixed return type in the PR. So i guesss it is possible to revert the changes in composer.json for php version back to "php": "^7.2 || ^8.0" ?
I guess that would increase the chances to be merged.

[maikelohcfg]

@maikelohcfg Thanks for the PR. I do not see any :mixed return type in the PR. So i guesss it is possible to revert the changes in composer.json for php version back to "php": "^7.2 || ^8.0" ? I guess that would increase the chances to be merged.

Hi Chris thanks for your tip, it is already done

[sannek8552]

Any news here? I am also interested in this PR

[maikelohcfg]

Any news here? I am also interested in this PR

Hi waiting revision and approval

[senorLobito]

Hello, I went through it and I didn't find any problem. Even though it's just a return type checking, the amount of files is massive.

The only thing I found that could be improved is to replace

\Doctrine\ORM\Query\Parser
\Doctrine\ORM\Query\SqlWalker

arguments in methods with use statement. Some places are replaced, some not.

[laurentmuller]

Any news about push this request ?

[jmdeepak007git]

Hi @stevelacey & @beberlei, We have recently upgraded to PHP 8.1 and facing the same issue of deprecations.
Could this PR be merged and released as it is been wanted by many chaps? Thanks a lot.

[Cruiser13]

@beberlei any chance to have this merged and a new release?

[mdeboer]

@beberlei Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I have sent you a message on Twitter also :) Would be great to see this PR be merged soon!

[jmdeepak007git]

Hi @stevelacey & @beberlei, When possibly this change will be released and created a tag guys ?

[beberlei]

Please depend on dev-master, this repo is currently not actively maintained

[laurentmuller]

Can You give rights to some active users to allow create a release ?

[mdeboer]

Like I said privately, I would be happy to help maintain 👍🏻

[laurentmuller]

Me too

[trickeyone]

It would be really sad to see a package with such a high daily-install rate and so much usage through the community be abandoned. Especially one that adds so much needed functionality. I think every can understand if @beberlei cannot solely maintain this repo any longer, given your participation in the Doctrine project and Symfony, but it looks like you have volunteers to help maintain it. Hoping that this package doesn't fall into disrepair.

[maikelohcfg]

Please depend on dev-master, this repo is currently not actively maintained

Hi @beberlei, I will love to help you to maintain this repo. Just let me know how I can help you.

[stetodd]

Hi @beberlei, I'd also be willing to help maintain this repo :)

[ToshY]

@beberlei Could you spare some time to respond to some of these highly motivated developers that are willing to help out?

Would be a shame to let it end like this 🙁

[Chris53897]

New Year, new friendly reminder to @beberlei to decide if one or more motivated persons can help to maintain this bundle. Or we need to make a fork and find a consent who becames the main maintainer of the new fork. I hope for the first solution.

[VincentLanglet]

Please depend on dev-master, this repo is currently not actively maintained

Hi @beberlei, this library is really useful and used by a lot of people.
I understand you have your reason for not actively maintaining it ; I assume it's due to lack of time.
Would you consider adding another maintainer (or release manager) on it ?

Also, since it's a really great library for doctrine user, would it be a thing to move it under the doctrine organization (which would give a lot more maintainers) ? (cc @greg0ire)

[beberlei]

The reason we don't want to move it under the Doctrine organization is that its a blackhole of work, considering the amount of vendor specific functions is almost endless, so are the different parameters to functions and so on. And the doctrine org maintainers are all focussed on their repos, they don't suddenly work on an additional repo just because its there, you can see how many doctrine repos are essentially unmaintained as well.

I would encourage someone that feels like it to fork this repository and continue maintaining it, I am not comfortable giving access to a repository on my Github user at the moment.

[Chris53897]

@beberlei
I have created a fork under https://github.com/Dukecity/DoctrineExtensions
I adjusted and merged a lot of open PRs and fixed deprecations.
ZendDate is removed and minimum php level raised to 8.1 (can maybe relaxed to 8.0) and some other dependencies.
I hope you can have a look at this.

If someone wants to help, here are some ideas.

[VincentLanglet]

@beberlei I have created a fork under Dukecity/DoctrineExtensions I adjusted and merged a lot of open PRs and fixed deprecations. ZendDate is removed and minimum php level raised to 8.1 (can maybe relaxed to 8.0) and some other dependencies. I hope you can have a look at this.

If someone wants to help, here are some ideas.

I would recommend to add in the Readme:

• Credits to the original library
• A section to highlight the improvements provided by your fork

[Chris53897]

Good idea, i added these two sections