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

MaintenanceLogger to check for wgMaxNameChars, refs 1983 #1985

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 5, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@mwjames
Contributor

mwjames commented Nov 5, 2016

This PR is made in reference to: #1983

This PR addresses or contains:

This PR includes:

  • Tests (unit/integration)
  • CI build passed
@mwjames

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mwjames

mwjames Nov 5, 2016

Contributor

@kghbln Instead of a nameless "PHP Catchable fatal error...", now it will throw an Exception informing about the required min length in wgMaxNameChars.

Contributor

mwjames commented Nov 5, 2016

@kghbln Instead of a nameless "PHP Catchable fatal error...", now it will throw an Exception informing about the required min length in wgMaxNameChars.

@mwjames

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mwjames

mwjames Nov 5, 2016

Contributor

Scrutinizer — Errored

Contributor

mwjames commented Nov 5, 2016

Scrutinizer — Errored

@mwjames mwjames merged commit 3cffbcf into master Nov 5, 2016

2 of 3 checks passed

Scrutinizer Errored
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build passed
Details

@mwjames mwjames deleted the issue-1983 branch Nov 5, 2016

@kghbln

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kghbln

kghbln Nov 5, 2016

Member

Hey, great another step to more user friendliness. :)

Member

kghbln commented Nov 5, 2016

Hey, great another step to more user friendliness. :)

@kghbln

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kghbln

kghbln Nov 5, 2016

Member

Ah, this check every logger individually.

Member

kghbln commented Nov 5, 2016

Ah, this check every logger individually.

@mwjames

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mwjames

mwjames Nov 5, 2016

Contributor

Ah, this check every logger individually.

Yes.

We isolated the MaintenanceLogger from its invocation using the MaintenanceFactory therefore allows us to apply the check independently from the respective caller..

Contributor

mwjames commented Nov 5, 2016

Ah, this check every logger individually.

Yes.

We isolated the MaintenanceLogger from its invocation using the MaintenanceFactory therefore allows us to apply the check independently from the respective caller..

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment