MDTT-38: Fix for CI failure.

[sadeesh-sdet]

Description

This pull request addresses the following changes:

1. PHPStan Improvement: Used a combination of type hinting and explicit checks to assist PHPStan in understanding the types involved and resolving static analysis errors in the issetField function.

2. Dependency Security Check: Added a security check for installed dependencies using the symfonycorp/security-checker-action@v4 action.

The rationale behind these changes is to enhance code quality by addressing PHPStan static analysis issues and to ensure the security of the project by checking for known vulnerabilities in dependencies.

Ticket: MDTT-38

Type of Change

• fix (A bugfix)

Scope (component, file, endpoint, etc.):

• PHPStan improvement: issetField function in [file path]
• Dependency security check: CI/CD workflow configuration

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 33 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (65885e9) 20.47% compared to head (078521b) 18.40%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head 078521b differs from pull request most recent head 5a5b5ad. Consider uploading reports for the commit 5a5b5ad to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/Test/DefaultTest.php	0.00%	24 Missing ⚠️
src/RunCommand.php	0.00%	9 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main      #24      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     20.47%   18.40%   -2.07%     
- Complexity      163      168       +5     
============================================
  Files            20       20              
  Lines           503      603     +100     
============================================
+ Hits            103      111       +8     
- Misses          400      492      +92     

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

[sadeesh-sdet]

@hussainweb cc @shwetaneelsharma As this project was originated as a part of coe, kindly review this PR when you have some time.

[hussainweb]

CodeCov is throwing a lot of errors. If the code coverage is not important, consider disabling the check temporarily.

[sadeesh-sdet]

CodeCov is throwing a lot of errors. If the code coverage is not important, consider disabling the check temporarily.

@hussainweb Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the pull request.

I'd like to add a note that I didn't intentionally add the CodeCov integration or the code coverage check; it was preexisting. I'm uncertain about its importance, especially since I've noticed that PRs have been merged despite code coverage issues.

Considering your suggestion, I agree that we should temporarily disable the code coverage check. This will prevent the check failures and allow us to merge the PR promptly. We can then discuss the necessity of code coverage and decide whether to re-enable the check in the future.

[hussainweb]

@sadeesh-sdet, if the changes here are meeting your needs for the moment, let's merge this and then work on all the comments in separate PRs. What do you say?

[sadeesh-sdet]

@sadeesh-sdet, if the changes here are meeting your needs for the moment, let's merge this and then work on all the comments in separate PRs. What do you say?

@hussainweb I think we've already addressed everything except code coverage enablement and its suitable exploration, which we can work on in the future based on priority!

[hussainweb]

Sorry, it took so long to review. Please see my comments and I think these should be simple changes.

[sadeesh-sdet]

Sorry, it took so long to review. Please see my comments and I think these should be simple changes.

@hussainweb Likewise, I was tied up with urgent client tasks. I'll attend to the feedback shortly.

[sadeesh-sdet]

@hussainweb I have addressed the PR feedbacks. Please review and merge the changes.