[Workflow] Added explaination on context in events and initial marking #14678
Conversation
|
@nicolas-grekas @lyrixx |
|
Should this target 5.1, since it tells about 5.1? |
I meant this. Maybe that's not relevant, I didn't check deeper. |
|
I don't know why it is in my PR. |
Co-authored-by: Antoine Makdessi <[email protected]>
|
@nicolas-grekas Is there more I should do ? |
|
So, I guess it is not a problem if it's merge here ? |
|
I think this is fine. But since 5.1 is still maintained, a PR targeting this branch should be open too |
components/workflow.rst
Outdated
| Initialization | ||
| -------------- | ||
|
|
||
| If you want to initiate your workflow, you can call ``getMarking``:: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| If you want to initiate your workflow, you can call ``getMarking``:: | |
| If you want to initiate your workflow, you can call ``getMarking()`` method:: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And I'm not super confortable with this sentence. What does mean "initiate your workflow"?
I do understand what you want to say, but for new comers, it could be confusing.
What about something like
When the object enter the workflow for the first time, the workflow will initialize the
propertywith theinitial_place.
If you want to have always a valid marking in your database, you can use thegetMarking()method to initialize the object property with the initial place::
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence : When the object enter the workflow for the first time, the workflow will initialize the property with the initial_place.
And instead of initial_place, I think we should use initial_marking as in the configuration : https://symfony.com/doc/current/workflow.html#configuration
So, I would say :
If the property of your object is null and you want to set it with the
initial_markingin the configuration, you can call thegetMarking()method to initialize le object property::
WDYT ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you are right about initial marking :) I used the old name, sorry.
You sentence is correct, let's go for it.
Minor detail:
- in the configuration
+ from the configurationThere was a problem hiding this comment.
DONE !
If it's ok for you, I let you resolve the conversation and maybe... merge the PR ?
Co-authored-by: Grégoire Pineau <[email protected]>
|
I've added the "Initialization" section to 4.4 manually ... but then I tried to merge this in 5.1 and I have lots and lots of conflicts 😞 |
|
Hi! Thanks for your contribution. I rebased this branch in #15200 and will merge that PR (there was a merge commit in the branch, which caused lots of conflicts when merging this PR). |
… initial marking (epitre) This PR was submitted for the 5.x branch but it was merged into the 5.2 branch instead. Discussion ---------- [Workflow] Added explaination on context in events and initial marking Finihes #14678 Commits ------- 5a8ce04 Added explaination on context in events and initial marking
No description provided.