Allow providing named arguments from a data provider

[jnoordsij]

Resolves #5150

This PR aims to allow passing named arguments from a data provider, to have more flexibility in re-ordering arguments and skipping optional ones without having to provide a default value.

Note 1: I was not entirely sure on where to put the test; if there is a more suitable location to add this, let me know!

Note 2: Combining named arguments with input from a dependency is not supported, as providing positional arguments after named ones in an array is not supported, and data provider arguments will go first as per doc description. I could not find a test to ensure this behavior, so made jnoordsij@ac028c8 this PR doesn't break existing behavior. I also created jnoordsij@f7e28c4 to demonstrate the unsupported case. If wanted, I can add those tests to this PR or a new PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (855919d) 89.40% compared to head (dafdc71) 89.40%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##               main    #5225   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage     89.40%   89.40%           
  Complexity     6425     6425           
=========================================
  Files           683      683           
  Lines         20405    20405           
=========================================
  Hits          18243    18243           
  Misses         2162     2162           

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

[jnoordsij]

Hey there! Was wondering if there was anything left for me to do that can help getting this reviewed and/or merged?

[jnoordsij]

Just rebased this onto main. I saw the 10.1 release is coming up; any chance of this making it into that, or is it too close to the release? Or is there any work required before merge?

[sebastianbergmann]

This will not go into PHPUnit 10.1, sorry.

[jnoordsij]

This will not go into PHPUnit 10.1, sorry.

I understand that it was a bit of a short time to get it in. Is there anything I can do to help it go into the next minor version?

[jnoordsij]

Rebased this on main and tests still seem to be fine locally.

Note: for anyone subscribed interested, testing these changes in your local setup to ensure everything works fine on your end and then leaving a review might be helpful in landing this PR.

[sebastianbergmann]

I also created jnoordsij@f7e28c4 to demonstrate the unsupported case. If wanted, I can add those tests to this PR or a new PR.

Yes, please send a pull request for test(s) for the unsupported case(s). Thanks!