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

Skip to content

Handle missing getUpdateOnlyProperties fn on Model #3647

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
bajtos merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2017
Merged

Handle missing getUpdateOnlyProperties fn on Model #3647

bajtos merged 1 commit into from
Oct 9, 2017

Conversation

@lehni
Copy link
Contributor

@lehni lehni commented Oct 9, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Description

This is a follow-up PR for #3579, which only addressed PersistedModel, while still leaving Model vulnerable to the issue. See #3579 (comment)

If the current scope (this) does not define a .getUpdateOnlyProperties
function, the updateOnlyProps value will now be set to false.

Related issues

@lehni
Handle missing getUpdateOnlyProperties fn
826ee2a 
If the current scope does not define a getUpdateOnlyProperties
function, the updateOnlyProps value will now be set to false.
bajtos
bajtos approved these changes Oct 9, 2017
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@bajtos bajtos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lovely, thank you @lehni for taking care of this 👏

@lehni
Copy link
Contributor Author

lehni commented Oct 9, 2017 •
edited
Loading

@bajtos I see a lot of failing checks but can't look at the details and it's all cis-jenkins. It looks like the site is down?

Also, how many reviews should PRs like these get before I can merge?

@bajtos
Copy link
Member

bajtos commented Oct 9, 2017

I see a lot of failing checks but can't look at the details and it's all cis-jenkins. It looks like the site is down?

Unfortunately the Jenkins server is accessible only from within IBM network :( I checked few of the downstream failures, they don't seem to be related to this change. Feel free to ignore them.

how many reviews should PRs like these get before I can merge?

In general, I think it's a good idea to allow 24 hours for people in different timezones to chime in. However, for a small change like this, I think my approval should be sufficient :)

Let's go ahead and land this pull request!

@bajtos bajtos merged commit fb8f3d9 into strongloop:master Oct 9, 2017
@bajtos bajtos removed review labels Oct 9, 2017
@chaitanya-bhagavan chaitanya-bhagavan mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2017
Closed
2 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@clark0x clark0x Awaiting requested review from clark0x

@ebarault ebarault Awaiting requested review from ebarault ebarault is a code owner

@fabien fabien Awaiting requested review from fabien fabien is a code owner

@zbarbuto zbarbuto Awaiting requested review from zbarbuto zbarbuto is a code owner

1 more reviewer

@bajtos bajtos bajtos approved these changes

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@lehni @bajtos @0candy