Fix exclude option in #field_test helper method #36
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
Hey @falusi94, thanks for the PR! Can you add the test case to the existing controller? Note to self: I think this was originally supposed to be an internal-only option that was mistakenly documented. |
falusi94
force-pushed
the
fix/exclude-option-in-controller-helper
branch
from
81cb833
to
d16591a
Compare
|
Hey, I just updated the PR, how do you see it? |
|
Thanks @falusi94! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
First of all, thanks for this great gem!
This PR addresses an unexpected behaviour that I found recently. The readme says here that participants can be excluded by a custom logic, providing the
excludeoption, but it is overwritten by the exclusion check for bots later.I prepared this PR from a monkey patch we use internally and also added a new API controller for tests as I think this use case fits better. Any feedback is appreciated on it!