Refactor ExistsByHash to allow chaining query builder methods

[EriBloo]

Hi,

I recently switched one of our projects to this package. For previous package I had created validation rule which I have adapted to work with yours.

This validation rule is based on Laravel Exists rule and allows chaining constraints on query builder:

validator(
    ['id' => User::idToHash(1)],
    ['id' => new ExistsByHash(User::class)->where('name', 'Admin')],
);

I also added support for custom message and attribute so you could do:

validator(
    ['id' => User::idToHash(1)],
    ['id' => new ExistsByHash(User::class)],
    ['id.existsByHash' => 'Incorrect :attribute'],
    ['id' => 'user'],
);

to get Incorrect user validation message. If no custom rule was specified there is a fallback to Exists rule message.

[EriBloo]

I added one more commit to use qualified columns in byHash scope. Current version may cause Column 'id' in where clause is ambiguous errors when used with joins.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (8cbc50c) 100.00% compared to head (326def0) 100.00%.
Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              master      #121   +/-   ##
===========================================
  Coverage     100.00%   100.00%           
- Complexity        46        53    +7     
===========================================
  Files              5         5           
  Lines            106       124   +18     
===========================================
+ Hits             106       124   +18     

[veelasky]

Ho @EriBloo thanks for the contributions, I noticed that if we push this, we should drop support for laravel 7-9, due to deprecation in Illuminate\Contracts\Validation\Rule

I wouldn't mind to release it under 4.x version, please also update the workflow to only include laravel 10.

[EriBloo]

Hi @veelasky. I work with Laravel 10 so I naturally pushed version compatible with it and forgot that current version is used by older Laravel as well. I don't mind refactoring it to the older Rule interface if you'd like, there is no reason to force next major version. Please tell me which approach is better for you ;)

Edit: I'm not sure how refactor would fit with custom message and attribute, would have to check it first.

[veelasky]

Hello @EriBloo,

Given the current situation, as there hasn't been a significant feature update, I aim to continue supporting lower Laravel versions, unless the deprecated class is removed or until a major feature such as prefix/suffix support is introduced.

[EriBloo]

I understand. But I'm not sure which approach you would like to take with this PR. Would you prefere me to refactor it to support Laravel versions 7-9 or release it under 4.x as is?