Allow a list of strings as header value in `JWT::encode()`

[herndlm]

Fixes https://github.com/firebase/php-jwt/issues/593

In our case we need to be able to set the crit claim for a third party webservice. Found more info about crit here: https://mojoauth.com/glossary/jwt-critical/

[google-cla[bot]]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[herndlm]

I don't have a google account associated with my email and don't want to create one. I'm ok with the CLA though. anyway, anybody feel free to take over this fix if possible. I also don't care if this is copied from me without mentioning me (e.g. @hultberg)..

that's how you make things hard in OSS with weird processes 😓

[bshaffer]

@herndlm unfortunately that isn't my call wrt the CLA

But I'm confused what you're trying to accomplish with this PR. You're only changing the PHP doc, which already accepts an array. list<string> does not mean anything in PHP.

Edit: I think I understand... maybe make the php typehint string[] instead? Either way I can't merge it unless you sign the CLA so I can just create a new PR with the change.

[herndlm]

yeah, string[] is fine too I suppose. the list is just slightly more strict and would enforce (when being checked by e.g. phpstan or psalm) an array with integer keys in ascending order without any gaps

[herndlm]

feel free to create a new PR instead please and also feel free to use string[]. I won't create a google account unfortunately or link it with my github or anything like that.

thx!

[bshaffer]

the list is just slightly more strict and would enforce (when being checked by e.g. phpstan or psalm) an array with integer keys in ascending order without any gaps

That's good to know! I like the strictness but IMHO the other is much more readable when not using a static analyzer.

Feel free to create a new PR

Will do. Thanks for your contribution!