[Cookbook][Security] proofread comments in voter article #5598
Conversation
xabbuh
commented
Aug 4, 2015
xabbuh
commented
| Q | A |
|---|---|
| Doc fix? | yes |
| New docs? | no |
| Applies to | all |
| Fixed tickets |
| // It always will be, unless there is some misconfiguration of the | ||
| // security system. | ||
| // double-check that the User object is the expected entity | ||
| // it always will be unless there is some misconfiguration of the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the whole sentence sounds weird IMO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. What about removing this part? // it always will be unless there is some misconfiguration of the security system
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i would say that the first part is enough: // double-check that the User object is the expected entity.
EDIT: ah this is what you meant, right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe @weaverryan liked to have the second sentence, indicating that this is a very rare exception.
(to be honest, I like having it as well...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe like this:
// double-check that the User object is the expected entity.
// this is a very rare case and only occurs, if you missconfigured your
// security system.
case can be exchanged by exception
or
// double-check that the User object is the expected entity.
// this is a very rare case and only occurs, if your
// security system is not well configured.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about:
double-check that the User object is the expected entity (this only happens when you did not configure the security system properly)
|
👍 |
|
👍 |
…(xabbuh) This PR was merged into the 2.3 branch. Discussion ---------- [Cookbook][Security] proofread comments in voter article | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Doc fix? | yes | New docs? | no | Applies to | all | Fixed tickets | Commits ------- 4d1de98 proofread comments in voter article
