[buddypress-trac] [BuddyPress Trac] #5220: Overhaul implementation of xprofile field types
buddypress-trac
noreply at wordpress.org
Sat Mar 8 00:12:11 UTC 2014
#5220: Overhaul implementation of xprofile field types
------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: DJPaul | Owner: DJPaul
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: normal | Milestone: 2.0
Component: XProfile | Version:
Severity: normal | Resolution:
Keywords: has-patch dev-feedback early |
------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Comment (by DJPaul):
Thanks for taking a detailed look at the patch; I appreciate it. I left a
comment on your github pull request as it seems there was a small mistake
in using _ instead of an _e function in a few lines, but all the other
suggestions look fine. I'll keep an eye on github and merge the pull
request in once resolved.
> The markup for the checkbox and radiobutton types doesn't seem to be
quite right.
> The "(required)" text seems to be repeated almost verbatim in almost
every instance of edit_field_html().
I don't disagree that these stand out as pain points, but so far in this
patch, I've taken the approach of being very conservative about not
changing code that doesn't strictly need to be changed for the purpose of
implementing the new field type classes. Mainly I didn't want to add all
this new stuff and change some of the existing templating markup in one
go. I think I would prefer dealing with these in separate tickets so we
can get more opinions on those specific parts.
> The "(required)" text seems to be repeated almost verbatim in almost
every instance of edit_field_html().
For this specifically, if it's abstractable, sure. I think however the
real problem is that this probably sucks as a translatable string (no
comments or context, plus it's a bit weird), and improving that would be a
higher priority.
> There's an [x] to remove the first option on a supports_option field,
but the js attached to it is broken because of some odd selectors
I'll check this out and get it fixed; thanks.
> I see in is_valid() that you've chosen not to validate if no rules are
matched, even when no rules have been set...
I don't have a strong opinion which way we do this. I *would* like
developers to make decisions about the formats that their custom field
types accept.
> Two, /.+$/ will fail for empty strings... is this an unnecessary
restriction?
I can't see the issue. I've just added more tests. What type of profile
field are you thinking of? e.g. For textboxes, it uses /.*/ instead.
--
Ticket URL: <https://buddypress.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/5220#comment:16>
BuddyPress Trac <http://buddypress.org/>
BuddyPress Trac
More information about the buddypress-trac
mailing list