This is the D8 port of #1852116: Backport from D8: Customizable "true"/"false" Views output for booleans. The actual feature request is described in that issue in #3:
Rather than introducing yet more settings, what it really should have is a custom setting and then you can fill in the true/false values as you like. With states/dependency it should be pretty easy to make those settings appear only if custom is chosen, and it should be also easy to switch correctly during render.
Comment | File | Size | Author |
---|---|---|---|
#21 | 1869124-21.patch | 6.87 KB | damiankloip |
#6 | 1869124-5-tests_only.patch | 4.15 KB | Les Lim |
#5 | 1869124-5.patch | 6.84 KB | damiankloip |
#1 | views-8.x-boolean_custom_output.patch | 2.69 KB | Les Lim |
Comments
Comment #1
Les LimPatch attached.
Comment #2
tim.plunkettThanks for the patch! We should add test coverage for this.
Comment #3
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedYeah, looks like a pretty good idea, Tim's right, we need tests for this too. Also, it would be good if The custom functionality was turned on/off with a checkbox too maybe?
Comment #4
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedSorry, you have this dependent on the custom format being selected. Awesome! I'll write some tests now.
Comment #5
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedHere are some tests to go with your patch, also, I changed the check_plain, to filter_xss_admin... Is it possible people will want tags? Should we even let them?
Comment #6
Les LimThanks! filter_xss_admin makes sense to me, and appears to be what's used in analogous places in Views.
Here's just the tests from #5.
Comment #7
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedI don't think we need just the tests, they will always fail because this is testing new functionality that only exists in the patch above but not expose anything broken :)
Comment #8
Les LimOh, I thought we also tested to make sure that the tests fail. Carry on, then.
Comment #9
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedIt's cool, imo we generally add just the tests to expose a current bug, they are there no, so there is no harm in that I guess :)
Comment #11
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedSetting this back top needs review as the patch in #5 is fine, not #6.
Comment #12
dawehnerSeems to be out of scope but sure that's okay ;)
Comment #13
tim.plunkett#5: 1869124-5.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #14
dawehner#5: 1869124-5.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #15
catch#1: views-8.x-boolean_custom_output.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #16
tim.plunkett#5: 1869124-5.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #17
dawehner#6: 1869124-5-tests_only.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #19
dawehner#6: 1869124-5-tests_only.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #21
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedRerolled.
Comment #22
damiankloip CreditAttribution: damiankloip commentedThis should be back to RTBC.
Comment #23
catchCommitted/pushed to 8.x, thanks!