Skip to content

Conversation

@dnd
Copy link

@dnd dnd commented Aug 17, 2018

As per @apotonick's request in #410 here is a PR to start the conversation about changes to Reform.

A couple things I noticed as I went through this.

  • #failure? did not actually return a boolean value. It just returned whatever was in @failure. Since a new #failure method was being added, I updated #failure? to be more consistent with the expectation of a ? method.
  • Is the result.rb line 9 is correct behavior? Should it instead be a map? As it is now, it's just going to find the first failure of the combined lists. Couldn't there be multiple?

@dnd
Copy link
Author

dnd commented Aug 20, 2018

@apotonick I don't think these failures are the fault of anything I did, are they?

@emaglio
Copy link
Member

emaglio commented Jul 12, 2019

@fran-worley @apotonick should we consider these changes for the next release - if yes, let’s add it in the 2.3v milestone

@emaglio emaglio changed the base branch from v2.3.0.rc2 to master November 17, 2019 05:31
@emaglio emaglio changed the base branch from master to v2.3.0.rc2 November 17, 2019 05:31
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.

2 participants