Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

@Wildebeest
Copy link
Contributor

@PragTob's suggestion from #262.

@PragTob
Copy link

PragTob commented May 17, 2016

Thanks for taking a stab at this and LGTM. :) Not sure about the version bump though, should be done for semantic versioning reasons but in the end maintainer's call :)

@Wildebeest
Copy link
Contributor Author

Definitely. I can also take out the version bump or change it to whatever @alto wants.

raise ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid.new(self) if aasm_whiny_persistence(name)
end

success
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since the only possible value for success at this point is true, I'd be explicit and would return true here instead of success .
Might be a personal thing, though.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It can return false if aasm_whiny_persistence is false.

Copy link

@tessi tessi May 23, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, I see. Nevermind then :)

@alto
Copy link
Member

alto commented Jun 19, 2016

@Wildebeest Thanks a lot for your pull request, great work!

I even support the default setting for whiny_persistence to be true, although that indeed requires a new major version. Let's do this: I accept your code changes as they are, make whiny_persistence: false the default and release it as new minor version. I will then change the default to true as part of the upcoming release 5.0.0. What do you think?

@alto
Copy link
Member

alto commented Jun 19, 2016

@Wildebeest And by the way, sorry for coming back to this so late!

…lt, mirroring ActiveRecord's behavior.

@PragTob's suggestion from aasm#262.
@Wildebeest
Copy link
Contributor Author

@alto No worries! I'm glad you were able to take a look. :)

Works for me. I've rebased and updated the PR with your suggestions.

@alto
Copy link
Member

alto commented Jun 19, 2016

@Wildebeest I just released version 4.11.0 including your change. 👍

@alto
Copy link
Member

alto commented Jun 19, 2016

@Wildebeest Have a look at #378, which will be part of the upcoming release 5.0.0.

@Wildebeest
Copy link
Contributor Author

<3 Thanks @alto!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants