-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 881
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
Handle array in custom prepend/append configuration. (2) #961
Conversation
Hi @SteveMaddison, thanks for the PR. Are you able to provide spec tests as well? |
I'm afraid I had too many issues running tests locally to make any progress there. This is a redo of a (since closed) PR from more than a year ago, which couldn't be merged due to conflicts. It would however seem that this change is incompatible with tests which have been added in the mean time. It's not something I require any more, so feel free to close this PR. |
@SteveMaddison: I know what you mean. It took me a while to get to where I could get the tests running properly locally... tho the steps in: Unfortunately, this one is currently failing tests, so we can't merge it until there are tests for the feature and / or existing tests are adjusted accordingly. Specifically, it's failing on this one (though I think technically it's a list of lists, not a list of hashes here); I'll look at it some more later, but I think something actually is broken, maybe because you're not iterating through a second level list if it exists:
From a quick reading, it seems as if these may already work whether it's an array or a hash: |
@SteveMaddison: If you're willing to specify your array as the module expects, this could just be a docs fix (i.e., once the main class is actually documented, we can specify the format that it expects). I do agree that this is not totally consistent with the way the rest of the module works, but it might actually be a better structure to use the existing examples, that is:
I personally think #2 is, in a way, better than just a flat array. One other note, may be a recent change, but there is both |
@wyardley I think there are indeed enough options without resorting to a flat array. I don't remember the exact use case this change was meant to address but users always have the option to convert a flat array to an existing compatible structure before passing to the module. I therefore don't see any real need to merge this any more, so I'll just close this PR. |
No description provided.