We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
Use case would be things like remaining.pend.
remaining.pend
Totally doable, but what should it look like?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is the current suggested workaround:
remaining.pass if aygabtu_matching_routes(remaining).any?
Sorry, something went wrong.
We should also consider making aygabtu_matching_routes official by documenting it (tests do exist).
aygabtu_matching_routes
For clarity, .pass should be .pend to match the initial post here.
.pass
.pend
I'm currently thinking about introducing a .tolerate_no_route_matching scope method. It would provide an explicit solution to this.
.tolerate_no_route_matching
But I don't like the name, it's a bit too long.
And maybe it's a dangerous tool to give to people. Maybe it should be disallowed to open a context block on such a scope.
No branches or pull requests
Use case would be things like
remaining.pend
.Totally doable, but what should it look like?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: