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

redo validation for fields #630

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 8, 2020
Merged

Conversation

crissi
Copy link
Contributor

@crissi crissi commented Apr 24, 2020

Summary

Fixes #602

Rules never worked in field arguments. (redone)

Type of change

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • Existing tests have been adapted and/or new tests have been added
  • Add a CHANGELOG.md entry
  • Code style has been fixed via composer fix-style

@crissi
Copy link
Contributor Author

crissi commented May 3, 2020

redid the pr + added the __typename to one of the tests.

@mfn
Copy link
Collaborator

mfn commented May 4, 2020

Jap, saw it! Sorry, short on time currently. Not forgotten, it's in the queue!

@crissi
Copy link
Contributor Author

crissi commented May 4, 2020

Awesome, keep up the good work 💪

@mfn
Copy link
Collaborator

mfn commented Jun 1, 2020

Sorry for the late feedback; I hope I'll find more time this week.

At a first glance however, I hesitated to go through the whole PR again because the commit messages and changes would kind of require that.

My sincere suggestion would be to make this PR a bit simpler to review:

  • one commit which reverts the revert I did (i.e. revert fb9dace )
  • one other commit with all the fixes (__typename, changelog, etc.)

The goal would be: since I already reviewed the original PR, I've less overhead and can concentrate more on the "delta" and knowing that the other commit is an (untouched) revert.

This also has other benefits like providing a very clear git history on its own without depending on the conversation here on github (not that this is mandatory, but it really makes the whole thing within just the git repo itself transparent).

I again apologize for the delay and that I ask of this now that the PR is laying around for over a month, but what you consider this? (totally fine for me to force-push this over this PR).

@crissi crissi force-pushed the redo_validation_for_fields branch from ac839de to c48de40 Compare June 8, 2020 07:21
@crissi
Copy link
Contributor Author

crissi commented Jun 8, 2020

separated the __typename fix

Copy link
Collaborator

@mfn mfn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks :-) 👍

@mfn mfn merged commit 1606e9a into rebing:master Jun 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Subquery args validations
2 participants