Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal core
Version:
8.0.x-dev
Component:
request processing system
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Bug report
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
24 Oct 2013 at 04:55 UTC
Updated:
29 Jul 2014 at 23:05 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #1
cosmicdreams commentedComment #2
jhodgdonThanks! The documentation changes are all great except:
There should be a blank line between the @param and the @return.
And technically, this is not a purely documentation issue.
Comment #3
cosmicdreams commented@jhodgdon Should I include the many fixes to missing @return statements?
I kind of thought that was out-of-scope but it's very annoying. I very much want to fix them.
Comment #4
jhodgdonWell, that is kind of up to you. If you add @return then it will take a bit longer for the patch to get reviewed, but we'll end up with better documentation. As long as the changes are confined to this one file, it's not too much out of scope. :)
I only mentioned the need for a blank line in #2 because you had added the @param and didn't add the blank line -- I didn't go through the whole file to check for other standards problems.
Comment #5
cosmicdreams commentedHere's a patch that includes that fix and fixes the @return documentation. Also, I just discovered how to use interdiff (the command line tool)
Comment #6
jhodgdonGotta love this line in the patch:
oops. :)
So, this mostly looks pretty good!
This documentation doesn't seem very enlightening. Also it should end in ".".
Other than that, this looks great. I checked all the @returns and they all seem correct except this one.
Comment #7
cosmicdreams commentedWill fix tonight.
Comment #8
cosmicdreams commentedI've described the exception to the best of my ability
Comment #9
jhodgdonHm... from the interdiff:
Looking at the code for this method, I think the return value is an array of string-substitution tokens for formatting a message about the exception? "The exception that was contained within the exception" doesn't say that to me, and doesn't make much sense?
Comment #10
Crell commentedResponse objects are sent to the client, not to the server. They're sent FROM the server.
(This occurs in several places.)
Extra space at the end of the description.
Comment #11
cosmicdreams commentedI'll try to incorporate those changes but if you want a more thoughtful explanation of that exception you'll need to find someone that understands it better.
Comment #12
cosmicdreams commentedHere's the new patch and interdiff with the changes described above.
Comment #13
cosmicdreams commentedComment #14
Crell commentedYou missed #10.1. Fixed here.
Comment #15
jhodgdonBut... we don't send the response *object* to the client either. We send a *response* to the client, and the object represents that response, right?
Given that we have a type on @return telling us it's an object, how about saying "The response to send to the client."?
Comment #16
damiankloip commentedNo, I don't think so. In all of these exception handlers we are dealing with the response object still, so I think that's accurate. It is not until send() is called on the response that it takes the form of an actual response.
Comment #17
jhodgdonYes but the docs say "The response object to send to the client". We don't send the response object to the client. We return the response object, and then send a response to the client, right?
Comment #18
damiankloip commentedYes, but this bit of the code should not care about what happens to the response IMO. If that's an issue, I would just say 'The response object', and just remove the need for the client talk.
Comment #19
jhodgdonMuch better idea. :)
Comment #20
Crell commentedBegone, client! (No other changes than the comment lines and some rebase jitter, so didn't bother with an interdiff.)
Comment #22
Crell commentedGrumble grumble...
Comment #23
damiankloip commentedLooks good. Looks like just a couple were missed (the JSON ones). Made those tiny changes to make things consistent.
I think this is good to go. Going straight for the RTBC.
Comment #25
damiankloip commented23: 2119237-23.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #26
webchickWell that was one of the funnier issue titles I've read in awhile. :)
Committed and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!