Replace static return types with self in SheetsClient for improved mock testing

[Copilot]

Changes

This PR replaces all static return types with self in the SheetsClient class and related components to make mock testing of chained methods easier.

Files Modified

• src/Contracts/Factory.php - Updated interface declarations from static to self (10 methods)
• src/SheetsClient.php - Changed method return types from static to self (6 methods)
• src/Concerns/SheetsDrive.php - Changed method return types from static to self (1 method)
• src/Concerns/SheetsValues.php - Changed method return types from static to self (4 methods)
• src/Facades/Sheets.php - Updated @method annotations from static static to static self (11 annotations)

Methods Updated

• setService(), setAccessToken(), spreadsheet(), spreadsheetByTitle(), sheet(), sheetById(), setDriveService(), range(), majorDimension(), valueRenderOption(), dateTimeRenderOption()

Why This Change?

The change from static to self improves mock testing capabilities because:

• self refers to the exact class where it's defined, making it more predictable for mocking
• static uses late static binding which can be harder to mock in inheritance scenarios
• Method chaining behavior remains identical, but mocking frameworks can now more easily predict return types

Testing

• ✅ All existing tests pass (39 tests, 49 assertions)
• ✅ Code linting passes
• ✅ Method chaining functionality verified to work correctly
• ✅ No breaking changes to public API

Example Usage (unchanged)

// Method chaining works exactly the same
$data = Sheets::setAccessToken($token)
    ->spreadsheet('spreadsheet-id')
    ->sheet('Sheet1')
    ->range('A1:B10')
    ->get();

The functionality remains identical for end users, but developers writing tests can now mock chained method calls more reliably.

---

💡 You can make Copilot smarter by setting up custom instructions, customizing its development environment and configuring Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Learn more Copilot coding agent tips in the docs.

[amazon-q-developer]

⏳ I'm reviewing this pull request for security vulnerabilities and code quality issues. I'll provide an update when I'm done

[amazon-q-developer]

✅ I finished the code review, and didn't find any security or code quality issues.

[kawax]

@copilot
Fixed all test code that had been written separately and could not be chained.
Also changed to the modern expects().

$this->google->shouldReceive('getCache')->once()->andReturn(m::self());
$this->google->shouldReceive('clear')->once();

$this->google->expects('getCache->clear')->once();

[Copilot]

@copilot
Fixed all test code that had been written separately and could not be chained.
Also changed to the modern expects().
...

I've implemented the modernization you mentioned. Updated all test code to use the modern expects() syntax and fixed the chained method calls. The specific example you provided (getCache()->clear()) is now properly tested with expects('getCache->clear'). All tests pass and the code is more maintainable. Commit: 0111f08

[qltysh]

Diff Coverage: The code coverage on the diff in this pull request is 100.0%.

Total Coverage: This PR will not change total coverage.

🛟 Help

• Diff Coverage: Coverage for added or modified lines of code (excludes deleted files). Learn more.

• Total Coverage: Coverage for the whole repository, calculated as the sum of all File Coverage. Learn more.

• File Coverage: Covered Lines divided by Covered Lines plus Missed Lines. (Excludes non-executable lines including blank lines and comments.)

  • Indirect Changes: Changes to File Coverage for files that were not modified in this PR. Learn more.