`// phpcs:set` is not limited to the file in which it is used

[jrfnl]

Repost from https://github.com/squizlabs/PHP_CodeSniffer/issues/2126:

I may be missing something, but AFAICS and in contrast to the other //phpcs: annotations, using // phpcs:set Standard.Category.Sniff PropertyName value is not file-based, but changes the sniff property for the rest of the PHPCS run.

IMHO this is unreliable as the effect of this depends on:

1. the order in which the files are sniffed which may change without notice;
2. will not work as expected when used in combination with the parallel option.

While in practice, this feature is mostly used in PHPCS unit tests, it is a useful feature as there is no other way to set a property for a limited group of files.

Would it be possible to make the effect of the // phpcs:set annotation be file-based ?

I imagine, that this could be done by saving the original value of the property when the first // phpcs:set for a certain property in a file is encountered into an array like $propertyOverrides[$sniffName][$propertyName] = $originalValue; and resetting the property to that original value once the last token of a file has been reached (or something along those lines).

Example use-case:

Say I have a sniff which checks variables in the global namespace or within a function scope when a global statement is encountered.

Now , say a project has view files which are included from within a function in another file. For those files it would be useful to be able to set a property FileType view which would only apply to that file. That way, for that file, the "global" namespace could be treated as scoped and the sniff would only check the variables and throw errors when a global statement is encountered.

Using phpcs:disable for that file or <exclude-pattern> the file from within a custom ruleset, is not an option as that would disable the sniff completely.

But setting phpcs:set at the top of the file currently changes the behaviour of the sniff for that file and all files scanned after it, which is not the intention either.

---

See the original discussion for some additional input.