Skip to content
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.

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

[reference] [form] [options] fix #6153 #6156

Closed

Conversation

HeahDude
Copy link
Contributor

Q A
Doc fix? yes
New docs? no
Applies to 2.3+
Fixed tickets #6153

* The right side contains simply the names of fields in the form.

Additionally, you can set the left side to dot ``.`` which refers to any
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I would change "[...] to dot . which refers [...]" to "[...] to dot (.), which refers [...]"

@wouterj
Copy link
Member

wouterj commented Jan 19, 2016

Hi @HeahDude. I've left some comments on your PR, you can fix these by adding other commits to the branch of this PR.

After the comments are fixed, this PR is ready to merge imo.

@HeahDude
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you @wouterj for the review, comments addressed in last commit

@wouterj
Copy link
Member

wouterj commented Jan 19, 2016

👍 Thanks for the quick response!

* The right side contains simply the names of fields in the form.

Additionally, you can set the left side to dot (``.``), which refers to any
unmapped properties or methods needing validation to the given nested field instead
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

[...] property or method [...]

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@xabbuh updated

@HeahDude
Copy link
Contributor Author

ping @xabbuh


Additionally, you can set the left side to dot (``.``), which refers to any
unmapped property or method needing validation to the given nested field instead
of bubbling them to the form::
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Actually, I still find this sentence confusing and suggest to change it to something like this:

By default, errors for any property that is not mapped will bubble up to the parent form. You can use the dot (.) on the left side to map errors of all unmapped properties to a particular field.

What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@wouterj, thanks for merging this. I agree with @xabbuh for the rephrasing except for "parent form" and "a particular field" because it's not obvious that (.) symbolise the current FormType being configured with defaultOptions()|configureOptions(). It should be respectively "current FormType" and "one of its children" instead IMHO.

wouterj added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2016
This PR was squashed before being merged into the 2.3 branch (closes #6156).

Discussion
----------

[reference] [form] [options] fix #6153

| Q             | A
| ------------- | ---
| Doc fix?        | yes
| New docs?   | no
| Applies to     | 2.3+
| Fixed tickets | #6153

Commits
-------

a15f856 [reference] [form] [options] fix #6153
wouterj added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2016
@wouterj
Copy link
Member

wouterj commented Feb 6, 2016

Thanks again for your contribution, @HeahDude! I've merged your pull request into the docs now.

After merging, I've applied @xabbuh's proposal in 1139127 as I think it's more clear.

@wouterj wouterj closed this Feb 6, 2016
@HeahDude HeahDude deleted the reference-form-options-fix-#6153 branch March 24, 2016 23:05
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.

3 participants