Re: consider reverting E_ALL with E_STRICT

On 06/03/12 17:08, Alan Knowles wrote: > I just got caught on a production server with the 5.4 upgrade on > debian, pretty much everything works fine, except the E_ALL change. > > I have to admit I missed the discussion where it was added, and > searching for E_ALL or E_STRICT on marc is pretty difficult (it > removes the E_ bit..) > > Anyway, this change is a bit of an bomb on the code on the first > server to get hit with this, While i've never cared for E_STRICT (it's > more like E_ANAL) - most of the warnings are pointless code tidy up's > that only have pretty much zero cost/return in fixing. > > However, this change really kills code written by third parties, All > our servers run with E_ALL on (eg. E_NOTICE is printed to end users) > and we fix instantly any errors that the end users see, as they are > frequently issues that should have been addressed. These applications > are intra/extranet apps, not public websites. > > However with E_STRICT included we have to run around and find all the > code, and change it to stuff like this: > > error_reporting(E_ALL & E_STRICT ? E_ALL ^ E_STRICT : E_ALL); error_reporting(E_ALL & ~E_STRICT); will work everywhere. You could even do a global search and replace of E_ALL to (E_ALL & ~E_STRICT), assuming it never appears in eg. a string. PS: I also consider E_STRICT a mostly helpful resource, and not using display_errors on production the sensible thing to do.