-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 921
Add a filter for serialization attributes #1123
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
meyerbaptiste
commented
May 17, 2017
Q | A |
---|---|
Bug fix? | no |
New feature? | yes |
BC breaks? | no |
Deprecations? | no |
Tests pass? | yes |
Fixed tickets | #1083 |
License | MIT |
Doc PR | N/A |
@@ -37,11 +34,6 @@ class ExistsFilter extends AbstractFilter | |||
{ | |||
const QUERY_PARAMETER_KEY = 'exists'; | |||
|
|||
public function __construct(ManagerRegistry $managerRegistry, RequestStack $requestStack, LoggerInterface $logger = null, array $properties = null) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've seen this in other filters I think. Do this need to be part of this commit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No this is the only filter where there is this useless constructor! I will open another PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, we have other useless constructors (QueryChecker for example)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not totally useless, the QueryChecker
's constructor is private! 😛
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nice! 👍
f738976
to
d3cd6e5
Compare
Perhaps "properties" instead of "fields" to be consistent in our terminology? |
But I guess people are more used to "fields"... Maybe we should just keep it this way. 😄 |
I'm for |
d3cd6e5
to
ad9acf1
Compare
Done. |
ad9acf1
to
f62f14c
Compare
Yes, but what would people be looking for, when they want that feature? "Fields". It might be worth using the term most people are likely most familiar with. |
ae5a752
to
ddb72a3
Compare
It's a doc issue. We need to make it easy to find on the website using both terms, but in the code, consistency is the key. Keep it as is. |
ddb72a3
to
722165c
Compare
Good job!! |