With PhpUnit 10 came the ability to use Php attributes rather than doc-block annotations for things like "data provider". PhpUnit 11 deprecates the use of annotations, and PhpUnit 12 will not not permit their use. Since PhpUnit 11 requires Php8.2+, we cannot adopt it as long as we support Php8.1, which will continue to be the case for some time. However, there is no penalty for early adoption.
Php-cs-fixer can use:
```
'php_unit_attributes' => ['keep_annotations' => false],
```
This allows us to run `composer fix` to automate all the needed changes. No manual changes were needed for any of the test members.
With this change, PhpUnit 9 can no longer be used with the test suite. File composer.json is updated to reflect that reality, and phpunit9.xml.dist, which has been supplied in case anyone needed to use PhpUnit 9, is no longer required, and is thus deleted. For now, PhpUnit 11 is not being added as a possibility.
No source code is changed in this PR.
Having addressed several security advisories, one evident *theoretical* problem remains. This is an attempt to future-proof our code against similar vulnerabilities. It all begins with our implementation of libXmlLoaderOptions, which uses as a default LIBXML_DTDLOAD. This unfortunate choice opens us to XXE problems, many recently solved. I do not believe that there is a legitimate use case for allowing this, and will therefore ignore and deprecate that option.
Although this might seem to be a breaking change, it is not. The setting is used only after the Xml has been subject to a security scan, and the security scan throws an exception if it detects the use of `<!DOCTYPE` within the Xml. Therefore, the setting will be effective only on Xml which does not contain that tag, and will consequently have no effect on most Xml. The only exception would be Xml which has been crafted to avoid detection by the security scanner in a manner which has not been disclosed to us. Although we hope that we've now blocked all such avenues, this provides additional protection just in case.
With this change in place, we could relax certain restrictions, e.g. the use of EBCDIC or even UTF-7. For now, these will remain in place. I will need to be convinced that there is a legitimate use case for easing the restrictions before doing so. We might even consider the elimination of the Security Scanner altogether. However, it does allow for early detection, and, in any case, provides a method to correct Xml which most Xml readers would fail but which Excel accepts.
My plan is to merge this within the next few days, and tag a new release immediately after. It will also be backported to all active branches.
Fix#3995. Fix#866. Fix#1681. Php DOM loadhtml defaults to character set ISO-8859-1, but our data is UTF-8. So Html Reader alters its html so that loadhtml will not misinterpret characters outside the ASCII range. This works for UTF-8, but breaks other charsets. However, loadhtml uses the correct non-default charset when charset is specified in a meta tag, or when the html starts with a BOM. So, it is sufficient for us to alter the non-ASCII characters only when (a) the data does not start with a BOM, and (b) there is no charset tag.
This will allow us to use:
- UTF-8 files or snippets without BOM, with or without charset
- UTF-8 files with BOM (charset should not be specified and will be ignored if it is)
- UTF-16 files with BOM (charset should not be specified and will be ignored if it is)
- all charsets which are ASCII-compatible for 0x00-0x7f when the charset is declared. This applies to ASCII itself, many Windows and Mac charsets, all of ISO-8859, and most CJK and other-language-specific charsets.
We cannot use:
- UTF-16BE or UTF-16LE declared in a meta tag
- UTF-32, with or without a BOM (browser recommendation is to not support UTF-32, and most browsers do not support it)
- unknown (to loadhtml) or non-ASCII-compatible charsets (EBCDIC?)
I will note that the way I detect the `charset` attribute is imperfect (e.g. might find it in text rather than a meta tag). I think we'd need to write a browser to get it perfect. Anyhow, it is about the same as XmlScanner's attempt to find the `encoding` attribute, and, if it's good enough there, it ought to be good enough here.
oleibman