Larastan: Mixin, scope detection in 0.6.11

[shaffe-fr]

• Larastan Version: 0.6.11
• Phpstan Version: 0.12.64
• --level used: max (8)

Description

Since version 0.6.11, some scopes and mixins are no longer recognized.
As I had no issue with 0.6.10, I forked the repo and reverted 2581f3b and it's working again.

Laravel code where the issue was found

 // DB::connection() must be added to avoid errors on the following lines
DB::query()->from('users')->exists();
DB::getDriverName();

// $relation->getQuery() must be added
$relation->getModel();

// Scope issues in a Model class
public function scopeAvailable(EloquentBuilder $query): void
{
    // Scope not recognized
    $query->notCanceled()->where('foo', 'bar');
}

// Scope not recognized in a Nova Resource
public static function indexQuery(NovaRequest $request, EloquentBuilder $query): void
{
    return parent::indexQuery(
        $request,
        // Scope is not recognized
        $query->whereHasMissingConfig()
    );
}

Thank you

[canvural]

Hi,

With 0.6.11 the unknown methods no longer return DummyMethodReflection. These cases weren't even working correctly on previous versions. Now we have the ability to see them.

// Scope issues in a Model class

public function scopeAvailable(EloquentBuilder $query): void
{
   // Scope not recognized
   $query->notCanceled()->where('foo', 'bar');
}

Larastan doesn't know which model to look for. For this reason, EloquentBuilder is a generic class. So you can tell it which model this builder operates on. /** @param EloquentBuilder<User> $query */ above the method definition would fix that.

// Scope not recognized in a Nova Resource

public static function indexQuery(NovaRequest $request, EloquentBuilder $query): void
{
    return parent::indexQuery(
        $request,
        // Scope is not recognized
        $query->whereHasMissingConfig()
    );
}

Same as above. /** @param EloquentBuilder<User> $query */ should fix it.

The other two issues needs more detailed look.

[canvural]

// $relation->getQuery() must be added
$relation->getModel();

For this case, can you tell me how do you get the $relation? What is its type?

[szepeviktor]

With 0.6.11 the unknown methods no longer return DummyMethodReflection.

We've opened up a big Can of worms :)
This is not the first - nor the last - issue regarding this change.

[canvural]

With 0.6.11 the unknown methods no longer return DummyMethodReflection.

We've opened up a big Can of worms :)
This is not the first - nor the last issues - regarding this change.

Yeah, I know. But actually a good thing. It means Larastan wasn't understanding those codes at all previously. Now we can add support for it.

[shaffe-fr]

Hi,

Adding the generic on the eloquent builder did the job for the scope issues.

At the end of the day, I think it was a good idea to open the Can of worms :) Adding generic on the EloquentBuilder seems natural.

// $relation->getQuery() must be added
$relation->getModel();

For this case, can you tell me how do you get the $relation? What is its type?

Call to an undefined method Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Relations\Relation::getModel().

/** @var \Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Relations\Relation $relation */
$relation = $model->{$viaRelationship}();

The Relation class has a @mixin \Illuminate\Database\Eloquent\Builder. The builder contains the getModel method.

$driver = DB::getDriverName();
Call to an undefined static method Illuminate\Support\Facades\DB::getDriverName().

Maybe related to this #704?

[szepeviktor]

Maybe related to this #704?

PHPStan has built-in @mixin support.
https://github.com/phpstan/phpstan-src/commit/b02ee1444440ed995c17171c456feec2c56e0cb2

[canvural]

I think if you type hint a specific implementation of Relation it should work. Relation class is abstract, so Larastan may skip the checks on it.

[shaffe-fr]

Yeah I saw that in the PR, but as the forwarding is not recognized I though that larastan's @mixin support was maybe better or more suitable to Laravel magic.

[shaffe-fr]

I think if you type hint a specific implementation of Relation it should work. Relation class is abstract, so Larastan may skip the checks on it.

Indeed, it's working with a concrete relation class.

So the question is "why did the bevahiour changed?".

[canvural]

Everything is fixed here I guess. Please open a new issue if you have new errors.

[shaffe-fr]

Yep everthing is fixed.