Cphalcon: [NFR]: Update Phalcon Documentation Before New Phalcon Releases

[v00v]

Please do not remove or change anything that breaks phalcon from older version without properly commenting code, providing example code or at least updating phalcon documentation. Phalcon documentation should be updated before new version of phalcon is released. This is why there is too many people confused on GitHub submitting duplicated bugs.

[niden]

Do you have any examples of that happening right now?

[v00v]

@niden Yes, I do actually. The newest $di->setShared('view') https://github.com/phalcon/cphalcon/issues/14496

[niden]

You are jumping the gun here without waiting for us to react and honestly it is not fair for everyone. Some information:

https://github.com/phalcon/docs/issues/2322

This tracks our current update list of the v4 documentation. As you can see there are a bit short of 20 documents to review/revise. Di is one of them so the documentation for that has not been updated yet. You can check the status of the document being red here:

https://docs.phalcon.io/4.0/en/di

For documents that we have worked on and revised, they look like this:

https://docs.phalcon.io/4.0/en/cache

and also there is the upgrade document here:

https://docs.phalcon.io/4.0/en/upgrade#cache

(the above link shows directly what one needs to do for the Cache component in particular)

For the issue you outlined #14496 , it was a duplicate of #14491 and there is work underway for it in this PR: https://github.com/phalcon/cphalcon/pull/14497

I applaud your enthusiasm and thank you for your diligence. Just check the issues and PRs just in case something is already being addressed or is duplicate.

[v00v]

@niden okay thank you!

[niden]

That is my point exactly. It happened after we released the code, our tests did not pick that up. A user reported it and we are working to fix it. Nothing else to it really. It is just like any other bug that has been found. The fact that all these are being reported now is great.

Honestly I don't know why you thought that this was an intended/design change - it was not in the upgrade doc. But either way. We are on it.

Thank you again for keeping a close eye on things :)

[v00v]

Why do you use RC versions instead of beta? As I understand from wikipedia;

Release candidate - A release candidate (RC), also known as "going silver", is a beta version with potential to be a final product, which is ready to release unless significant bugs emerge.

_RC version should NOT have any removals or changes that break version from previous version._

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release_candidate

[niden]

As with any software, bugs can and will appear. alpha, beta, RC or even stable versions suffer from those. This was not a change that was intended. Just a change that brought unintended consequences. We just need to add a few more tests to our suite so that the particular bug is caught if it appears again.

That was it really.

[v00v]

@niden Thank you for explaining. Keep up the great work you guys do!