I've updated the names. Let me know if I did it right or if there's some other format I should use there. I wasn't clear if spaces were allowed.

I also realized I missed the "risky" sets before, so I added those as well.

Hm. Did I not use the names correctly? Please advise.

OK, I don't understand what the tests are objecting to now. Can someone help me out here? I'm confused as to what I'm still screwing up. 😄

Isn't the name of the test - testFixerDocumentationFileIsUpToDate - helping? Have you read https://github.com/PHP-CS-Fixer/PHP-CS-Fixer/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md? My bet would be you haven't run php dev-tools/doc.php.

BTW it is not illegal to run tests locally 😉

OK, I think I got it this time. Let's see what the bot thinks.

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4098266388

• 25 of 25 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 7 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.006%) to 92.956%

Totals
Change from base Build 4093635880:	0.006%
Covered Lines:	22724
Relevant Lines:	24446

💛 - Coveralls

Anyone else still interested in this PR, now that it's actually passing? 😄

you put per-cs1.0 in test fixture name, but keep PERCS10Set for Set classname file.
what do you think about using 1x0 in filename to indicate the dot? ref #6707 (comment) [I believe it's last still open comment]

Anything else that needs to be done here?

It's released today! 🎉 But it's 2.0 instead of 1.1.
https://github.com/php-fig/per-coding-style/releases

All the more reason we should get this code merged soon so work can start on the 2x0 ruleset... 😄

I'm not going to try and fix the conflicts until I hear from someone with merge access that this approach is acceptable. No sense doing (more) work if it's not going to be accepted.

@Crell I really would like to get it merged, but I need some time to get familiar with it. I believe all @keradus' doubts were addressed, @kubawerlos gave approval, for me it looks good at first glance (deprecate too general ruleset + introduce version specific rulesets), I just need to dig deeper into provided changes and previous discussions.

If you don't mind, I can rebase it to get rid of the conflicts and to trigger new CI pipeline. But of course you can do it too 🙂. Let me know, thanks in advance.

You'll probably have a chance to rebase it before I will, so feel free. I am happy to answer questions about it, though "why is it done that way?" is mostly answered by "because some other PR reviewer said to and I don't know the tool well enough to disagree." 😄

(Also updated the description to account for there now being a PER-CS 2, not 1.1.)

@Crell are you able to address last 2 concerns (this and this)? We could finish it 🙂.

I thought you had taken over. 😄 Here's a stab at it. Let's see if the bot approves.

Once this is done, we should figure out how to get PER-CS 2 implemented. There are probably going to need to be a few new rules.

@Wirone Back at you.

I am not 100% sure about current file/class naming (PERCS1x0Set and PERCS1x0RiskySet), because looking at other sets none of them uses NxN notation - both PHP and PHPUnit related sets have only numbers (like PHPUnit100MigrationRiskySet, but I believe we can change those files/classes names when needed, leaving actual set's name as-is. It is something that should be standardise somehow, but it's out of scope of this PR.

So.. I'm going to merge it and if anything looks wrong to @keradus we can change it later, before release.

Thank you very much @Crell 🍻

Excellent! Now someone can start on the PER-CS 2.0 ruleset. 😄