Sniff to limit the use of new in constructor

[kevin-schmitt]

see #25
Thanks in adavnce for reviewing :)
Im not sure for typo use NewInstanceSniff is good ? else i think NewKeywordInstanceSniff ?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #153 (3871d5c) into master (f4c215f) will increase coverage by 0.20%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #153      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     97.41%   97.61%   +0.20%     
- Complexity      136      149      +13     
============================================
  Files            16       17       +1     
  Lines           348      378      +30     
============================================
+ Hits            339      369      +30     
  Misses            9        9              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Codor/Sniffs/Classes/NewInstanceSniff.php	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update f4c215f...3871d5c. Read the comment docs.

[villfa]

I think more tests are required.

Check there is no warning in this case:

<?php

$app = new Application();
$app->run();

Does it work with regular functions?

<?php

function newClass(): Class
{
    return new Class();
}

What about anonymous classes? Maybe we should ignore them.

[villfa]

Since PHP 8.1 new is also allowed in the constructors parameters: https://3v4l.org/SmdWR#v8.1.2
We need a test to be sure there won't be any warnings in this case.

[kevin-schmitt]

Thanks @villfa ,

I add some tests and case
I add handle for case not work like scope_opener not present but is a function
I fix various things

Not simple to implement ^^

Can you review me please ?
What is codecov patch and project ? problem with that how i can resolve please ?

Thanks

[villfa]

Great work! :)

I've added just 2 last comments but otherwise it seems ready to merge.

FYI Codecov is a tool checking that the code coverage is always improving.
It complains because of one line not being tested:

If you think of a way to test it then go ahead, otherwise it's ok to let it as it is.

[villfa]

Thank you :)