Fix pattern match

[hgraca]

At some point this was correct and then changed into a bug.

I am reverting the change that introduced the bug.

[fain182]

Thanks for you contributions! As you can see from the broken tests this function is used in a lot of places, and reverting to an old behavior is not a valid solution...
Which is the exact behavior that you didn't expect? If you have an example would be great 🙂

[hgraca]

@fain182

Reverting the changes and leaving the test as is, we can see that this assertion fails:

        $pattern = new PatternString('SoThisIsAnExample');
        $this->assertFalse($pattern->matches('*This'));

However, it shouldn't fail because it shouldn't match since there is no wildcard at the end of the string.

[hgraca]

@fain182
I removed a duplicate assertion and added a few more to make sure all scenarios are covered.

[hgraca]

@fain182 I believe I fixed the issues, can you check the last commits, please?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.76%. Comparing base (92dad93) to head (f628a1b).

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #404      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     94.79%   94.76%   -0.04%     
+ Complexity      606      604       -2     
============================================
  Files            69       69              
  Lines          1614     1604      -10     
============================================
- Hits           1530     1520      -10     
  Misses           84       84              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[d-cichon]

@hgraca i need this ;-;

Can we merge it?

[hgraca]

@d-cichon as far as I'm concerned, yes. However, I'm not a maintainer, I can't merge anything.
Back when I opened these PRs I ended up making my own fork cozz I felt this project was abandoned, no one was merging anything.
Not sure how this is now, but u might need to do the same.

[hgraca]

@d-cichon @fain182

I see there is work being merged, so I guess this is not abandoned as I thought.

Thus, I opened an issue for this PR, rebased, squashed and force pushed to this branch.

This PR resolves #457

[AlessandroMinoccheri]

LGTM 👍

[AlessandroMinoccheri]

@fain182 @micheleorselli it seems OK for me, any other opinions?

[micheleorselli]

just out of curiosity, why do we need to add this? cc @AlessandroMinoccheri

[hgraca]

Its from a long time ago, but I guess it was because if a class is in a subnamespace is still in the given namespace.

However, looking at it now, it's out of scope fo this PR, and not having the * is a better option because we can match the namespace exactly or provide the namespace with a * which will match subnamespaces as well.

So, Im adding a fixup commit to remove this change.

The test ResideInOneOfTheseNamespacesTest::test_it_should_match_namespace_and_descendants will fail if this is not there, as it seems this expression has been designed to match the namespace or its descendants.

[hgraca]

I rebased and force pushed