Skip to content
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

Change location type from object to http://json-schema.org/address# #209

Closed
olivif opened this issue Dec 24, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

Change location type from object to http://json-schema.org/address# #209

olivif opened this issue Dec 24, 2015 · 5 comments
Milestone

Comments

@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator

olivif commented Dec 24, 2015

I was going through open PRs and found an interesting suggestion from @madskristensen - PR #113

He is suggesting changing the type of location from object to address.

This would probably be a bit more standardized, as opposed to creating our own type of location. Any thoughts? 😄

@stp-ip
Copy link
Member

stp-ip commented Dec 24, 2015

I am not sure where it was proposed initially, but for the next release I think we agreed upon using the json schema for address. So +1. The PR itself won't probably suffice as the location needs to be added to all subsections anyway: #63

@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator Author

olivif commented Dec 24, 2015

@stp-ip , excellent! I was not aware. That is true, PR #113 also has failing tests so it's probably a larger change. I will close #113 for now and mark #63 as PR needed, so we do it all in one go.

@chrisdotcode
Copy link
Member

Hey guys, don't forget to tag issues like this with v1.0.0, and link them in the master v1.0.0 issue.

@chrisdotcode chrisdotcode added this to the v1.0.0 milestone Dec 24, 2015
@olivif
Copy link
Collaborator Author

olivif commented Dec 24, 2015

@chrisdotcode will do 😄

@chrisdotcode
Copy link
Member

Closing, cf. #240 (comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants