fromStrictString method

[rogervila]

Description

Provide a new fromStrictString method that validates the string against the isValid method.

Motivation and context

Fix #531

How has this been tested?

The new method is covered by Unit tests.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

PR checklist

• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.

[rogervila]

Hi @ramsey, looks like there is a python issue on the docs build step. Could you review it? thanks!

[ramsey]

Interface changes will require a major version bump.

[ramsey]

@rogervila Thanks for the PR. Unfortunately, I'm unemployed without any income, and I'm spending every waking minute on job searching, so I'll be unable to give this much attention until I've sorted out my financial situation. Thank you for your understanding. 🙂

[rogervila]

@rogervila Thanks for the PR. Unfortunately, I'm unemployed without any income, and I'm spending every waking minute on job searching, so I'll be unable to give this much attention until I've sorted out my financial situation. Thank you for your understanding. 🙂

Don't worry, first things first 🙂

[ramsey]

Can you provide some more details on when a user might use fromStrictString() instead of fromString()? I've read #531, but it sounds like an application-specific or domain-specific problem, rather than a library problem, since you want your application to be more strict than the library when creating UUIDs from strings.

Another problem is the introduction of a new interface method. This breaks BC and would need to wait until a later major version of this library.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.13%. Comparing base (4e0e23c) to head (ae59c6e).

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##                4.x     #533      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     95.11%   95.13%   +0.02%     
- Complexity      574      578       +4     
============================================
  Files            70       70              
  Lines          1637     1645       +8     
============================================
+ Hits           1557     1565       +8     
  Misses           80       80              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/Uuid.php	98.19% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
src/UuidFactory.php	98.34% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

[ramsey]

@rogervila Can you take a look at my comment from April last year and let me know your thoughts? I'm still not sure this is needed. Plus, it has a major BC break because of the interface change.