Problem/Motivation
views.argument_validator.numeric
Should be an array and is defined as a boolean.
We will also add here #2654300: User and node argument validators have broken schema and #2531850: Schema for the taxonomy term name argument validator "transform" option is missing, and then add a test for validating it.
Proposed resolution
Remaining tasks
User interface changes
API changes
Data model changes
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #14 | interdiff-argument_validator-2663290-11-14.txt | 695 bytes | edurenye |
| #14 | argument_validator-2663290-14.patch | 9.14 KB | edurenye |
| #11 | interdiff-argument_validator-2663290-6-11.txt | 630 bytes | edurenye |
| #11 | argument_validator-2663290-11.patch | 9.08 KB | edurenye |
| #6 | interdiff-argument_validator-2663290-3-6.txt | 592 bytes | edurenye |
Comments
Comment #2
edurenye commentedI'm merging this issues in one as will be easier to fix, review and add tests.
Comment #3
edurenye commentedMerged the fixes and added a tests.
I'll add the test of taxonomy term over the test that will be added here #2640994: Fix label token replacement for views entity reference arguments
Comment #5
berdirIt's not a sequence. A sequence is a list of identical elements. Options are always a mapping.
The test coverage is quite implicit, simply by having an otherwise unused test view by having those options configured. We should at least add a comment to the view why it exists. Would also like to know from @dawehner if that's enough for him. IMHO, it's better to have these issues fixed with minimal test coverage instead of not fixed :)
Comment #6
edurenye commentedOk, changed to mapping.
Comment #7
berdirOk, lets get some feedback from @dawehner :)
Comment #8
dawehnerThis is looking great in general!
This one indeed no longer exists.
This is a sign that we should have a default config schema using
views.argument_validator.*:insteadComment #9
berdirWe're not very consistent on in regards to default wildcard schema for plugins like that. I know we do it for blocks but not in many other places.
I kind of like forcing people to explicitly define the schema, bugs like #2663376: The core block_settings schema defines schema for block_content blocks don't happen then :)
Comment #10
dawehnerWell, my point is, if we touch that example anyway, why not provide a generic one. I think in views we added more and more over time, but sure, let's keep it.
Comment #11
edurenye commentedIf you want the default, here is, I think is good to have the default one.
Comment #12
dawehnerThank you @edurenye!
Comment #13
catchThis is still missing a reply to #5 on the test view. Agreed it at least needs a comment.
Comment #14
edurenye commentedAdded a comment in the description.
Comment #15
berdirAdding that as the description is an interesting idea (I would have used a yaml comment at the top of the file). Works for me, lets see if @catch agrees.
Comment #16
dawehnerThis isn't a bad idea!
Comment #17
catchDescription works for me. Committed/pushed to 8.1.x and cherry-picked to 8.0.x. Thanks!