Removes a need for a check in advpoll_view which makes the code easier to understand and removes some unneeded content rendered on the result page.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#3 advpoll_results_0.patch1.16 KBanders.fajerson
advpoll_results.patch1.05 KBanders.fajerson

Comments

anders.fajerson’s picture

anders.fajerson commented
Priority: Normal » Minor
Status: Active » Needs review
ChrisKennedy’s picture

ChrisKennedy commented
Status: Needs review » Needs work

Doesn't apply.

anders.fajerson’s picture

anders.fajerson commented
Status: Needs work » Needs review
StatusFileSize
new advpoll_results_0.patch1.16 KB

Re-rolled.

anders.fajerson’s picture

anders.fajerson commented
Priority: Minor » Critical

Still applies (with fuzz). Bumping up from minor :)

ChrisKennedy’s picture

ChrisKennedy commented

I can't see any difference in the output. What "unneeded content" are you referring to?

anders.fajerson’s picture

anders.fajerson commented

Ok, "unneeded content" might have been a bit biased. But what I referred to was the submit date, description and optional question field. It can be argued if they indeed should be rendered on the result page, but I think that the simplification in advpoll_view() warrants their removal. I guess we could also render those fields individually, in that case this page should be wrapped in a theme function, maybe anyways, but that's another issue.

ChrisKennedy’s picture

ChrisKennedy commented
Status: Needs review » Needs work

Ah, well I think those do need to be on the results page - showing the results without the question would be strange. Manually adding submit date & author to a template function also seems like a bad idea, because they are controlled at admin/build/theme/settings.

anders.fajerson’s picture

anders.fajerson commented
Priority: Critical » Normal
Status: Needs work » Closed (won't fix)

Yeah, I can agree.