Part of meta-issue #1856630: [Change notice] [META] Rename Views methods to core standards
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #3 | views-rename-op-equal.patch | 1.84 KB | zschmid |
| #1 | views-rename-op-equal.patch | 1.84 KB | malcomio |
Part of meta-issue #1856630: [Change notice] [META] Rename Views methods to core standards
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #3 | views-rename-op-equal.patch | 1.84 KB | zschmid |
| #1 | views-rename-op-equal.patch | 1.84 KB | malcomio |
Comments
Comment #1
malcomio commentedComment #2
oenie commentedAdd public access modifier in front of the method to adher to the new OOP standards.
Comment #3
zschmid commentedPatch for adding public access modifier
Comment #4
zschmid commentedComment #5
zschmid commentedComment #7
oenie commented#3: views-rename-op-equal.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #9
oenie commented#3: views-rename-op-equal.patch queued for re-testing.
Comment #10
oenie commentedLooks good to me now !
Comment #11
dawehnerWe should decide first whether we have a proper naming for all this operation query methods and then get them in consistently.
Comment #12
alexpottCommitted b5411b1 and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!
Comment #13
heddnIf this is a public API call, then opFoo has zero meaning. Maybe addFoo is wrong but something has to be better than opFoo. Do we mean operation, opportunity, opening post? At least spell it out.
Comment #14
heddnI guess we can iron out the details about naming after massing conversion.