Luís Cobucci
Luís Cobucci
@SunnnyGohil are you using the stable release? If so, could you try with `dev-master`?
We added the original sniff because we wanted for new projects to follow that and for us to eventually migrate existing code. We saw no issue in having local overrides...
It's also fine to use inheritance and ignore local occurrences of the violation (`//phpcs:ignore sniff`) as part of the migration IMHO.
Also, any change to the provided list of sniffs is a BC-break in this project, so the targeted version here should be 9.0.x instead.
@beberlei I honestly think that everything can be improved but do agree that user impact is important and **must** be considered when changing stuff. We accepted this sniff back then...
@jackdpeterson could you please send us a failing test case that reproduces that behaviour? It would help us a lot to identify and fix the issue you're describing. These tests...
@rgyelson could you please send a PR with your suggestions instead? It would be easier to look at things and even perform benchmarks if needed.
> I'd consider the PSR-7 test suite in error here, as it leads to an XSS vulnerability, and I recommend providing them our security test instead. I think the tricky...
@codercms are you always experiencing that low performance or it depends on the text length? Does anything change if `/maxmemory:NN` gets added to `php://temp`? The filesystem should only be used...
@Seldaek it seems like the error comes from the main branch...