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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Fixed #30086, Refs #32873 -- Made floatformat template filter independent of USE_L10N. #14832

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2021
Merged

Fixed #30086, Refs #32873 -- Made floatformat template filter independent of USE_L10N. #14832

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2021

Conversation

felixxm
Copy link
Member

@felixxm felixxm commented Sep 3, 2021

@felixxm felixxm changed the title Fixed #30086 -- Made floatformat template filters independent of USE_L10N. Fixed #30086, Refs #32873 -- Made floatformat template filters independent of USE_L10N. Sep 3, 2021
@felixxm felixxm mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2021
Closed
@felixxm
Copy link
Member Author

felixxm commented Sep 3, 2021

@interDist Can you take a look?

@claudep
Copy link
Member

claudep commented Sep 3, 2021

Thanks, nice! So you excluded handling ug/gu. Is force grouping without being localized not a possible use case? If we keep it that way, I would explicitly mention the mutual exclusivity in the docs.

@felixxm
Copy link
Member Author

felixxm commented Sep 3, 2021

Thanks, nice! So you excluded handling ug/gu. Is force grouping without being localized not a possible use case?

Good catch 🎯 Added.

@felixxm felixxm changed the title Fixed #30086, Refs #32873 -- Made floatformat template filters independent of USE_L10N. Fixed #30086, Refs #32873 -- Made floatformat template filter independent of USE_L10N. Sep 3, 2021
@felixxm felixxm marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2021 07:26
@felixxm felixxm requested a review from a team September 4, 2021 18:49
@felixxm
Copy link
Member Author

felixxm commented Sep 6, 2021

@kezabelle Thanks for the review 👍 I pushed edits.

@kezabelle
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM. Probably want another pair of eyes on it given some of the text I was off-the-top-of-my-head proposing was ... wrong though :)

As an aside, is it expected that value (the incoming number) can be a string, and is actually that supported? It's not documented as such as far as I know, but it mostly works...

carltongibson
carltongibson approved these changes Sep 7, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@carltongibson carltongibson left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks all. I think this looks pretty clear now, so 👍

@felixxm felixxm merged commit 4a43335 into django:main Sep 8, 2021
@felixxm
Copy link
Member Author

felixxm commented Sep 8, 2021

@carltongibson Thanks for the review 👍

@felixxm felixxm deleted the issue-30086 branch September 8, 2021 06:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@kezabelle kezabelle kezabelle left review comments

@interDist interDist interDist left review comments

@carltongibson carltongibson carltongibson approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@felixxm @claudep @kezabelle @carltongibson @interDist