Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork5.3k
[WIP] Documenting the Validator component#3710
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
are we doing everywhere the https:// and not thegit@github.com? just curious
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Usinggit@github.com requires setting up SSH for your account, which does not provide any value when accessing public reposiitories in a read-only way (it used to be reserved to collaborators btw, but I think this has changed)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
yeah and it is far a better practice to get people into contributing and learning. We shouldn't assume all are read-only people 👶
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
the component repos are read-only, so it's only for read-only people. And if you want to contribute, you look into the contributing docs and not this docs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
And the https url is not a read-only URL either (and anyway, even contributors should not push to the symfony repo directly but to their fork, as everything goes through PRs even for the core team)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
I would say "do easy validation tasks with it"... Don´t you think the sentence is a bit weird right now?
ricardclau commentedMar 25, 2014
Nice work so far! I am embarrassed I never found the time to do it, thanks for the big effort@wouterj Just added some stylistic comments and typos. I am not native, though, so happy to discuss and obviously feel free to refuse any of my proposals |
wouterj commentedMar 25, 2014
I'm happy to see you back here,@ricardclau ! I'll look at your comments later this week. |
ricardclau commentedMar 25, 2014
I am about to finish a very intense side project that has kept me busy longer than I expected... let´s hope I can contribute again from time to time! Again, feel free to reject / accept any of my comments, most of them are just rephrasing and things like that, and maybe they will clash with the current style of the documentation. |
xabbuh commentedJun 18, 2014
@wouterj What's the state here? |
wouterj commentedJun 18, 2014
In queue. I've not forgotten this one, but there are more important things to do. The validator component already has a great doc in The Book. |
xabbuh commentedJun 18, 2014
Alright. Let me know if I can help you with this. |
wouterj commentedMar 7, 2015
Closing, I don't see any time or motivation to work on this in the coming time. If anyone wants to take it over, feel free to base on this PR (I'll leave the branch in my fork). |
cordoval commentedMar 7, 2015
sorry to hear this is not continued ⌛ |
mickaelandrieu commentedJul 27, 2015
@wouterj I will continue your work, big thanks ! |
mvhirsch commentedAug 27, 2015
@mickaelandrieu What is the current state of the documentation? |
mickaelandrieu commentedAug 27, 2015
mvhirsch commentedAug 27, 2015
@mickaelandrieu I'm glad to hear that, thank you very much! |
javiereguiluz commentedAug 27, 2015
@mickaelandrieu my advice would be to not make everything in one pull request. Even Wouter, who is used and loves to write documentation, abandoned this one. Remember that having some docs is better that having none :) |
OskarStark commentedAug 27, 2015
thank you@mickaelandrieu |
mickaelandrieu commentedAug 27, 2015
@javiereguiluz yeah, I know but I'm pretty sure nothing will be accepted if it is incomplete :/ If you have time for it, I will (realy) appreciate a pre-validation from you before push any contribution :) |
javiereguiluz commentedAug 27, 2015
@mickaelandrieu I would gladly help you. Sadly, I can't help you because I don't have enough experience with the Validator and Form components, so I don't understand them. |
wouterj commentedAug 27, 2015
@mickaelandrieu the complete task of writing Validator component docs can be split into a couple seperate PRs without being incomplete. For instance, a good first step would be to have the standard Introduction + Installation sections and some docs to set up the Validator, referencing the book article for the other information. In a next PR, some sections from book can be moved to the components docs. |
I started documenting one of the last missing components (only
BrowserKit needs some love after this).
This might become just another refactoring of the documentation, since
it'll duplicate a lot of
book/validation. I don't think it's a problemif we do the same thing as we did with the translation documentation?
(that was a test, but I think it has gone well?)
Todo
violations, like translation, presentation, debugging, etc.)
Todo after this PR is merged (will be transformed into issues)
/cc@ricardclau,@webmozart