ProxyBuilder generates incorrect @see reference

It was simple task to correct the @see. The harder part was generating the proxy files. I happened to test with the book module and the script was not providing any feedback. I eventually found 📌 Provide a nice error message when trying to run the generate proxy class script on uninstalled/missing modules Active which informed me that the book module needs to be enabled. With that fixed I then went to generate the files. I didn't see an option to generate all the files so I wrote my own script to do that.

Looking at the changed proxy files they all have the expected change except for ./core/modules/field/src/ProxyClass/FieldUninstallValidator.php. That has a method added that was added to ./core/modules/field/src/FieldUninstallValidator.php in #2392815: Module uninstall validators are not used to validate a config import → . I suspect that is out of scope for this issue.

Could the issue summary be updated? Not super clear what's being updated.

Also will this require a test case?

This is a fix to documentation, specifically @see statements and we don't test documentation changes. As for generating the proxy classes, that is done via a script, so again no tests needed.

What about the change to core/modules/field/src/ProxyClass/FieldUninstallValidator.php

@smustgrave, as the reviewer your opinion is valuable. What do you think should happen?

More asking. This is a documentation change but the one file is adding a new method

Dropping my 0.02 EUR...

Changes in phpdoc are fine/excellent.
The new method that was missed in #2392815: Module uninstall validators are not used to validate a config import → should be added, but the fact that it was missed and that @quietone needed to make a script to recreate all proxy classes shows IMHO that we're (at least) missing test-coverage.

For that reason I would say, it needs a follow-up to add it and make sure we have "something" that makes sure that this doesn't happen in the future. Especially the latter justifying the admin-overhead of a follow-up

Thanks @Spokje! @quietone are you in agreement?