Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
PG Lewis
@pglewis
those were specifically added because they're things I had broken playing around but tests didn't detect
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
@pglewis Seriously appreciative. The tests that ARE there were hard-earned, but I think we're still a ways off from full coverage.
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I fully empathize, Pods is the same way
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
I'm sure! The long-game is that these tests improve tests for both libraries :)
PG Lewis
@pglewis
back-compat is a big constraint in refactoring and a necessary evil, so I'll bolster the tests as much as I can to catch those things
because we have to refactor, and we can't break back-compat lol
all my experimental branches currently pass all tests, including the new ones, and work for the example functions and the options page implementation in the snippets lib
which of course means it time for me to break them again
the snippets library is probably going to be fertile ground for more testing scenarios as well
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
Yes, absolutely agree. So I take it your testing user profile fields as well
PG Lewis
@pglewis
yeah, user profile mb as in the example functions
it looks like the example functions registers an options page mb that's never hooked up, as far as I could find, so I replaced that one with the example code from the snippet lib
what I test against will grow as I go along too, I'll pull more from the snippet library, or any other source for testing stuff I can get my hands on
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
You're right about options page snippet in example functions
PG Lewis
@pglewis
at least not an indicator that I'm going crazy yet
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
Another good test bed would be the third party addons: https://github.com/WebDevStudios/CMB2#3rd-party-resources
yah, not yet. :P
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I'm always careful to be clear with my language, there is no definitive proof that I'm not going crazy, after all
and yeah, custom field types are high on my list of testing to expand to
currently back to evaluating if I can just remove the redundant field arrays stored
that branch is instantiating field objects when they're created now, so objects always exist
and the arrays keys are accessible via ->args, so we can still return that when requested
PG Lewis
@pglewis
but keeping both an array of arrays and an array of the objects seems redundant and full of confusion for me lol
pitfalls with back compat for sure, but I'm still slowly working around them
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
agree, it's pretty terrible.. updating one of the arrays in the array doesn't update the corresponding object
PG Lewis
@pglewis
I /think/ it can be done
just harder than I originally thought lol
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
worst case, can re-build the array on the fly if the fields array is requested, right?
PG Lewis
@pglewis
still, tests will improve regardless of whether or not this experiment proves worthwhile
and that's nearly as important as making this branch work
unsure what to do if it's just not viable to remove the arrays
I'm still working under the stubborn assumption that it'll be doable, but not pretty in spots
and then evaluate where it lands and decide if that's better than where it started or not
but it clears up one potential issue of nesting fields in other ones
as objects will always be available and can be found by ID (you don't necessarily need an object ref if you have ID)
which could in turn mean the original syntax scott tried might be feasible
or something very close to it
since now having a field ID DOES mean you have access to the object
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
that would be awesome.. a unique id per field, yah?
basically a handle
PG Lewis
@pglewis
still just using the same IDs for fields
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
based on "as objects will always be available and can be found by ID"
PG Lewis
@pglewis
if it translates as a straight refactor, I think what I'll end up with is an args->fields[] array of more field objects for nested ones
Justin Sternberg
@jtsternberg
I see
PG Lewis
@pglewis
same array keys for the object list right now as the array list
as the branch stands, so it's been easy to start converting sections of code that were referencing the arrays
just point them at $field_objects instead of $fields_array
and refactor to call through to ->args on the object for the arrray stuff
current state is I'm still keeping both parallel but soon will drop the arrays hopefully and see how bad it blows up
and all of it seems to be working except for group fields, which was known it would be broken