Allow multiple entities with closure strategy

[JDruery]

Fixes #2652. I added one test that does not pass and then modified the Closure.php strategy file to handle this case (persisting two types of entities, both with closure trees, and then flushing).

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 79.37%. Comparing base (85f7831) to head (fad0036).
Report is 73 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head fad0036 differs from pull request most recent head e6c6de6

Please upload reports for the commit e6c6de6 to get more accurate results.

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/Tree/Strategy/ORM/Closure.php	85.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2653      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   79.67%   79.37%   -0.30%     
==========================================
  Files         161      162       +1     
  Lines        8453     8471      +18     
==========================================
- Hits         6735     6724      -11     
- Misses       1718     1747      +29     

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

[phansys]

Given the tied implementation we have around spl_object_id() for array keys, I think we could extract that logic to a private method instead of manually building these keys each time.
BTW, please, don't forget to add a changelog note.

[JDruery]

Given the tied implementation we have around spl_object_id() for array keys, I think we could extract that logic to a private method instead of manually building these keys each time. BTW, please, don't forget to add a changelog note.

I went ahead and added a changelog note. Let me know if I did it correctly.

If you can provide specific instructions on what other refactoring you'd like to see, I could try to add that to this PR, but I wonder if that would be better to put in a separate update.

[phansys]

I went ahead and added a changelog note. Let me know if I did it correctly.

It is correct, thank you.

If you can provide specific instructions on what other refactoring you'd like to see, I could try to add that to this PR, but I wonder if that would be better to put in a separate update.

I agree, let's make this change in a separate PR.

[JDruery]

I'm still having issues, even after this fix. I've added one more commit to simplify the code further and ensure that closures are never added until the node has been persisted. I think the issue is solved now, but let me know if anything else needs to be done on my end.

[JDruery]

I'm not sure if the rebase needs to be done by me, or someone else will do that. If it's me, I will need some instructions as I've never done this before.

[phansys]

I'm not sure if the rebase needs to be done by me, or someone else will do that. If it's me, I will need some instructions as I've never done this before.

You should execute this command:

git pull --rebase upstream main

(where upstream is the name of the git remote pointing to this repo)

Then, you must manually resolve the conflicts presented by git, add the modified files to the staging area (git add) and continue with the rebase (git rebase --continue).
When the rebase is done, you must force push your changes:

git push origin main -f

[JDruery]

I'm not sure if the rebase needs to be done by me, or someone else will do that. If it's me, I will need some instructions as I've never done this before.

You should execute this command:

git pull --rebase upstream main

(where upstream is the name of the git remote pointing to this repo)

Then, you must manually resolve the conflicts presented by git, add the modified files to the staging area (git add) and continue with the rebase (git rebase --continue). When the rebase is done, you must force push your changes:

git push origin main -f

I've completed the rebase. Hopefully everything is correct, but let me know if anything else needs to be done related to that. Thanks.

[github-actions]

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[JDruery]

Any movement on this pull request? Anything still needed to merge this?

[phansys]

Any movement on this pull request? Anything still needed to merge this?

IMO, this only requires a rebase currently.

[JDruery]

Any movement on this pull request? Anything still needed to merge this?

IMO, this only requires a rebase currently.

Thanks for reviewing that, I went ahead and did a rebase.

[phansys]

This seems a regression.

[JDruery]

Thanks for pointing that out, I mistakenly resolved the conflict in the wrong direction. I've updated the version to 7.4

[phansys]

Please, check the whole file. Many of these changes seem like a regression.

[JDruery]

Thanks for your patience, this is my first time contributing to a large project. I've gone through the whole file and updated all packages to match the current versions.

[AkenRoberts]

Thanks for taking the time to iterate and fix, JDruery!