Closed (fixed)
Project:
Drupal core
Version:
8.2.x-dev
Component:
views.module
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Issue tags:
Reporter:
Created:
5 May 2016 at 07:29 UTC
Updated:
30 Jun 2016 at 12:14 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file
Comments
Comment #2
dawehnerComment #3
mattc321 commentedWorking on this at the NOLA Sprints.
Comment #4
mattc321 commented@dawehner were you looking for something like this?
Comment #5
dawehnerNice!
Comment #7
mikeker commentedThe test failure seems unrelated. Rerunning...
Comment #8
dawehnerAgreed
Comment #9
mikeker commentedTagging for NOLA sprints. I was mentoring @mattc321 on this issue.
Comment #10
catchLooks like we could move the NULL logic from get() to getAll(), and have get() call it - then we could drop the @todo from getAll()?
Comment #11
dawehnerWe discussed that and well thought it would be sort of out of scope of this change, but yeah I'm not sure about that.
Comment #12
mikeker commentedre: #10:
As @dawehner mentioned, we did talk about it and decided to leave it to the followup issue. But I think @catch is right that we should do as much as we're allowed to do in 8.x and leave just the API breaks to 9.x.
Comment #13
imiksuI'm mentoring two guys (@narnua and @maddinen) to work on this novice step.
Comment #14
imiksuComment #15
narnua commentedMentoree at Drupal Sprint in Helsinki
Comment #16
imiksuHere we have tests for this.
Setting "Needs review" for triggering testbot.
Comment #18
mikeker commentedReturning to NR as the failure was from the test-only patch.
Note: if you upload the tests-only patch first then it doesn't change the issue status when it fails, only if the tests-plus-fix patch fails.
Comment #19
catchThat's passing but doesn't handle #10 yet.
@dawehner it's definitely in scope for 8.x, I think the patch is small enough it's fine to do here as well.
Comment #20
markdorisonComment #21
dawehnerNice work!
Comment #22
mikeker commentedI'm concerned that there's a lot of out of scope stuff in #20. Agreed, it needs to be cleaned up at some point but I'm not sure this is the issue to do it in...
Comment #23
dawehner@mikeker
Well, @catch asked for ... and well, its an improvement, so let's just do it?
Comment #24
mikeker commented@dawehner, I didn't mean the request from #10, I meant the code sniffer fixes which looked to be numerous. But in looking at it again, there is only this:
Sorry, about that. I must have been misreading the diff.
RTBC++
Comment #25
alexpott@mikeker - if you review with git diff -w then the changes don;t look so bad - mostly everything is just indentation.
Committed 6b94c5c and pushed to 8.2.x. Thanks!