Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork9.7k
[FrameworkBundle] Use canBeEnabled() instead of canBeUnset() for consistency#17690
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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
fabpot commentedMar 2, 2016
👍 |
fabpot commentedMar 2, 2016
To keep BC, I would keep the |
GuilhemN commentedMar 2, 2016
@fabpot in case someone uses the FrameworkBundle's |
fabpot commentedMar 2, 2016
@Ener-Getick I know that the BC break would be small, but as it does not cost us anything to not break BC, I prefer to. |
GuilhemN commentedMar 2, 2016
fabpot commentedMar 2, 2016
ok, fair enough, 👍 |
fabpot commentedMar 2, 2016
Thank you @Ener-Getick. |
GuilhemN commentedMar 2, 2016
You're welcome :-) And I see one solution to keep ->arrayNode() ->canBeEnabled() ->canBeUnset() ->threatFalseLike(false) |
I'm not sure if we should consider this as a bug fix or as a new feature.