Add suggest section to composer.json for recommended extensions

[rodrigoprimo]

Description

As suggested in PHPCSStandards/PHP_CodeSniffer-documentation#91 (review), this PR adds ext-iconv and ext-pcntl as suggested extensions in composer.json.

This way, Composer will display these recommendations when installing PHP_CodeSniffer, helping users discover optional extensions that improve functionality.

Suggested changelog entry

Added suggest section to composer.json to inform users about the recommended ext-iconv and ext-pcntl PHP extensions.

Related issues/external references

Related to PHPCSStandards/PHP_CodeSniffer-documentation#91 and PHPCSStandards/PHP_CodeSniffer-documentation#95

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • This change is only breaking for integrators, not for external standards or end-users.
• Documentation improvement

PR checklist

• I have checked there is no other PR open for the same change.
• I have read the Contribution Guidelines.
• I grant the project the right to include and distribute the code under the BSD-3-Clause license (and I have the right to grant these rights).
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• I have verified that the code complies with the projects coding standards.
• [Required for new sniffs] I have added XML documentation for the sniff.
• I have opened a sister-PR in the documentation repository to update the Wiki.

[fredden]

This reminds me of squizlabs/PHP_CodeSniffer#3754. Is it within scope to add all the extensions to the 'suggest' list here?

[jrfnl]

This reminds me of squizlabs/PHP_CodeSniffer#3754. Is it within scope to add all the extensions to the 'suggest' list here?

Yes, 💯 . Good call.

@rodrigoprimo Keep the following in mind (from my review of squizlabs/PHP_CodeSniffer#3754:

[jrfnl] As a matter of course, extensions which ship with PHP and can not be disabled do not need to be listed.

@fredden Also reminds me of your offer to verify that those extensions are all used conditionally:

[fredden] Would it be helpful for me to open pull requests for each of the identified extensions, and add a "conditional use" check around these? We could then move these extensions from the require section to suggest.

I'd definitely be happy to see this verified/safeguarded, so I'd welcome PRs handling that. Maybe we should open an issue about it, so we can also track what has been verified, but didn't need a PR ?

If you don't have the bandwidth for this at this time, maybe you could ask @rodrigoprimo if he wants to do that too (open the issue + verify extension usage) ?

[jrfnl]

Thanks @rodrigoprimo!

P.S.: I'll hold off on merging for the moment until you've had a chance to read the discussion between @fredden and me and indicated how you want to move forward in light of that.

[rodrigoprimo]

Thanks for the review, @jrfnl!

P.S.: I'll hold off on merging for the moment until you've had a chance to read the discussion between @fredden and me and indicated how you want to move forward in light of that.

I'd be happy to help with that. @fredden, let me know how you'd like to proceed (either by creating the issue and verifying the extension used, or by asking for my help at any point in this process).

@jrfnl, unless I misunderstood something, I think this PR can be merged. I will wait to hear from @fredden for the next steps.