Fix undefined array key "desc" in element property lexicon translation

[Ibochkarev]

What changed and why

modElement::get('properties') and modPropertySet::get('properties') read $property['desc'] without checking the key. PHP 8 logs Undefined array key "desc" when a property definition has no description field.

The fix resolves the label with $property['desc'] ?? $property['description'] ?? '' and calls the lexicon only when the result is non-empty. Both classes share the same translation loop, so both get the same guard.

How to test

php -l core/src/Revolution/modElement.php
php -l core/src/Revolution/modPropertySet.php
XDEBUG_MODE=coverage core/vendor/bin/phpunit --filter testGetPropertiesWithoutDescKey -c ./_build/test/phpunit.xml

Exit 0 on PHP 8.4 locally.

To see the original warning: open an element in the manager whose stored properties omit desc (imported or legacy definitions). Before this change, the log pointed at modElement.php:165.

Related issue(s)/PR(s)

Found in the manager error log. Part of the broader PHP 8 cleanup tracked in #16018.

Compatibility notes

Applies on PHP 8+. When desc is present, behavior is unchanged. When both desc and description are missing, desc_trans is an empty string instead of a warning.

Breaking change assessment

No API or signature changes. Safe for patch releases.

Test coverage

testGetPropertiesWithoutDescKey with two data-provider cases: missing desc (no warnings, empty desc_trans) and description fallback only.

Contributors

N/A

AI tool use

Cursor agent wrote the patch, regression test, and review notes.

[smg6511]

@Ibochkarev @Mark-H - Guys, just one little thing re the unit test: I don't think it's needed or really appropriate to basically be checking the correctness of how something is coded (in this case that there's a null guard to avoid php errors/warnings) via a UT (at least not one that's to be included in the code base's suite). IMO, that part of this PR can be dropped.

[Ibochkarev]

@Ibochkarev @Mark-H - Guys, just one little thing re the unit test: I don't think it's needed or really appropriate to basically be checking the correctness of how something is coded (in this case that there's a null guard to avoid php errors/warnings) via a UT (at least not one that's to be included in the code base's suite). IMO, that part of this PR can be dropped.

Hi!

I've removed the changes from the test.

[mkschell]

For me, that was a bit of a grey area. The test wasn't directly testing the input/output contract of the method, but I saw it as testing for an unwanted side effect (as opposed to testing the correctness of the code). I see it's been modified and approved, and that's ok with me. IMO we should be working to reduce side effects of functions (can you tell I'm into FP?) but I'm also ok with not explicitly testing for them (or their absence) if that's the general sentiment.

[smg6511]

Maybe this is a nit, but 'description' is not an expected key on the properties array; it's only used in defining a non-default prop set object and isn't accessed here.