A continuation of PR #3859. Change code that would be flagged if we were to run Phpstan at level 9 (we currently run level 8). I may or may not follow up with source code (454 level-9 problems remain for src), but there is no reason to avoid the effort for samples.
No changes are made to src.
* Let Phpstan Run on Samples
Phpstan currently analyzes all source and test members. We already run phpcs and php-cs-fixer on samples as well. I would expect that samples are often used as templates for code in userland; it behooves us to be at least as careful with those members as for the others which are already being analyzed. Aside from 1300+ messages `Variable $helper might not be defined.`, which will be suppressed in phpstan.neon.dist, there are really only a few changes needed for sample members, so that part of the code base was already in good shape, and is now even better. No annotations were needed.
* Scrutinizer 2 out of 3
1 false positive, now suppressed; fix other 2.
* Remove Dead Code
* Very Minor Changes
* Add infra
Because they tend to clutter our code a lot and unfortunately, there are
lots of false positives. Instead, it would probably be better to deal
with false positives out of band, via the Scrutinizer web UI.
* Phpstan Baseline Fixes 2022-09-21
Eliminate about 200 more lines from Phpstan baseline. For Helper/Sample and Helper/Html and others, many properties are declared as protected despite the fact that the classes do not extend any other class, and there are no classes which extend them. They are changed to private; this could be a breaking change in circumstances for which I cannot think of a use case (user extends class for some reason).
* Slightly Botched Merge Commit
Hope this fixes phpstan.
* Additional unit tests and rationalisation for Financial Functions
* Providing a series of sample files for Financial functions
* Refactor the last of the existing Financial functions
* Some more unit tests with default assignments from null arguments
Co-authored-by: Adrien Crivelli <adrien.crivelli@gmail.com>
* First step extracting INDIRECT() and OFFSET() to their own classes
* Start building unit tests for OFFSET() and INDEX()
* Named ranges should be handled by the Calculation Engine, not by the implementation of the Excel INDIRECT() function
* When calling the calculation engine to get the range of cells to return, INDIRECT() and OFFSET() should use the instance of the calculation engine for the current workbook to benefit from cached results in that range
There's a couple of minor bugfixes in here; but it's basically just refactoring of the INDIRECT() and OFFSET() Excel functions into their own classes - still needs a lot of work on unit testing; and there's a lot more that could be improved in the code itself (including handling of the a1 flag for R1C1 format in INDIRECT()
* Extract LookupRef\INDEX() into index() method of LookupRef\Matrix class
Additional tests
* Bugfix for returning a column using INDEX()
* Some improvements to ROW() and COLUMN()
* Simplify some of the INDEX() logic, eliminating redundant code
oleibman
Adrien Crivelli
MarkBaker
MarkBaker