Expose raw validation results#463
Open
dnd wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
Author
|
@apotonick I don't think these failures are the fault of anything I did, are they? |
Member
|
@fran-worley @apotonick should we consider these changes for the next release - if yes, let’s add it in the 2.3v milestone |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As per @apotonick's request in #410 here is a PR to start the conversation about changes to Reform.
A couple things I noticed as I went through this.
#failure?did not actually return a boolean value. It just returned whatever was in@failure. Since a new#failuremethod was being added, I updated#failure?to be more consistent with the expectation of a?method.result.rbline 9 is correct behavior? Should it instead be amap? As it is now, it's just going to find the first failure of the combined lists. Couldn't there be multiple?