php8.2 fix undeclared properties on backoffice contribution form

[eileenmcnaughton]

Overview

php8.2 fix undeclared properties on backoffice contribution form - fixing a bunch of tests

Before

php8.2 fails on the setting of _contributionID - this property is unused in core but there was intent when added that it could be accessed from hooks

CRM_Contribute_Form_ContributionTest::testSubmitCreditCardWithBillingAddress
Creation of dynamic property CRM_Contribute_Form_Contribution::$_contributionID is deprecated

/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/CRM/Contribute/Form/Contribution.php:1473
/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/CRM/Contribute/Form/Contribution.php:1282
/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/CRM/Contribute/Form/Contribution.php:1815
/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/CRM/Contribute/Form/Contribution.php:1117
/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/tests/phpunit/CRM/Contribute/Form/ContributionTest.php:2220
/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/tests/phpunit/CRM/Contribute/Form/ContributionTest.php:525
/home/homer/buildkit/build/build-3/web/sites/all/modules/civicrm/tests/phpunit/CiviTest/CiviUnitTestCase.php:242
/home/homer/buildkit/extern/phpunit9/phpunit9.phar:2307

After

Property is not set - but is still transitionally available with a deprecation notice

Technical Details

php8.2 fix undeclared properties on backoffice contribution form

There are just 2 properties

_payNow is distinctly internal, and easily searched in universe so I made it private

- _contributionID is specifically set for the purposes of hooks - although I expect that
was more relevant when the code was shared with the front end form. However, I have
set it up to still work for now, albeit with a deprecation notice

Comments

[civibot]

🤖 Thank you for contributing to CiviCRM! ❤️ We will need to test and review this PR. 👷

Introduction for new contributors...

• If this is your first PR, an admin will greenlight automated testing with the command ok to test or add to whitelist.
• A series of tests will automatically run. You can see the results at the bottom of this page (if there are any problems, it will include a link to see what went wrong).
• A demo site will be built where anyone can try out a version of CiviCRM that includes your changes.
• If this process needs to be repeated, an admin will issue the command test this please to rerun tests and build a new demo site.
• Before this PR can be merged, it needs to be reviewed. Please keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers, and their response time can vary from a few hours to a few weeks depending on their availability and their knowledge of this particular part of CiviCRM.
• A great way to speed up this process is to "trade reviews" with someone - find an open PR that you feel able to review, and leave a comment like "I'm reviewing this now, could you please review mine?" (include a link to yours). You don't have to wait for a response to get started (and you don't have to stop at one!) the more you review, the faster this process goes for everyone 😄
• To ensure that you are credited properly in the final release notes, please add yourself to contributor-key.yml
• For more information about contributing, see CONTRIBUTING.md.

Quick links for reviewers...

• ➡️ PR Demo site (can be rebuilt with the command test this please).
• 📖 Review standards
• 🗒️ Review template (brief or verbose)

➡️ Online demo of this PR 🔗

[braders]

I like this way of throwing the deprecation warning, but just noting this could cause issues if anyone is doing property_exists($form, '_contributionID');, as property_exists won't run __get().

Difficult to judge how likely that is. If we wanted to fix it we could declare private $_contributionID; without giving it a value. This would make property_exists return true, but the __get() would still be called as the property would be private.

[eileenmcnaughton]

@braders yeah good point - I think it's possible to implement __isset for that - but for undeclared properties it would have already returned FALSE I think?