Skip to content
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

Fix misleading code example #186

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 17, 2016
Merged

Fix misleading code example #186

merged 1 commit into from
May 17, 2016

Conversation

RKushnir
Copy link
Contributor

You are not allowed to use a lambda for :application value, because the :application validator expects a string only.
See https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano/blob/848301718570b168ef491974e3ba5b5055d63648/lib/capistrano/defaults.rb#L2

You are not allowed to use a lambda for `:application` value, because the `:application` validator expects a string only.
See https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano/blob/848301718570b168ef491974e3ba5b5055d63648/lib/capistrano/defaults.rb#L2
@antonpaisov
Copy link

👍

@mattbrictson
Copy link
Member

Great catch. Although I think the real problem here is that the validation code does not allow lambdas. I consider that a limitation that should be removed.

I'll merge this for now, but I'll also open another issue to track the lambda problem.

Thanks! 👍

@mattbrictson mattbrictson merged commit 76ff802 into capistrano:gh-pages May 17, 2016
@RKushnir
Copy link
Contributor Author

I was wondering if that was intentional. Thanks

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants