Useless dependencies option about composerrequirechecker HOT 6 OPEN

This means that the useless packages would be filled with potentially dangerous false-positives.

That fact makes it perhaps not useful for automation, but yhere could still be an option to request this check on demand - usually the maintainer is going to be able to tell false positives from real ones, so this check could definitely be useful in my opinion.

For example, after a large refactoring, such as splitting off certain members to a separate package - it's often hard to keep track of the dependency changes in that situation.

from composerrequirechecker.

This is problematic due to how composer dependencies work, as sometimes you have to require a dependency, and then a third-party package performs a lookup to see if a certain HTTP client or extension is available, then looks for polyfills and so on.

This means that the useless packages would be filled with potentially dangerous false-positives.

from composerrequirechecker.

This means that the useless packages would be filled with potentially dangerous false-positives.

@mindplay-dk Well explained what I think about that.

This is also why I said the configuration file should accept packages to ignore.

from composerrequirechecker.

Duplicate of #14?

from composerrequirechecker.

@soullivaneuh Would https://github.com/composer-unused/composer-unused help for your case?

from composerrequirechecker.

Would https://github.com/composer-unused/composer-unused help for your case?

I'd recommend that tool, too, even though it is only just starting and has some issues, errors and unresolved edge cases.

I have them both running in an automated job, so using one or two tools is no big deal. And I can imagine that these two tools have way different approaches due to their different nature. Keeping them separate will probably reduce overall complexity. ;)

from composerrequirechecker.