-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.9k
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
Pluralizer Case Sensitivity #1246
Conversation
Added a matchCase method to attempt to determine case format and apply it but fallback to default value if not found. Added matchCase to the irregular and inflected return values.
Add tests to support new case 'aware' plural and singular methods.
Not sure why the Travis 5.3 build failed. 5.4 passed ok. Says something wrong with CookieTest but don't even think the pluralizer is used in that class? My testing passed locally. |
5.3 build failed presumably from the same issue causing #1238? Error is at the same line. @taylorotwell |
Removed space to trigger rebuild from travis.
Just removing extra space to trigger a rebuild. |
Passed with no 'real' change in coding. |
Top job there @helmut. Good work. |
Thanks ben... as a fellow aussie I was tempted to rename it 'pluraliser' while I was at it! |
Pluralizer Case Sensitivity
This PR changes the 'mix' helper function to take URLs coming from the hot file. This feature is fully backwards compatible. Supporting Laravel-Mix Pull Request laravel#1246, allowing Hot Module Reloading with custom hosts and ports Do not merge straight away, awaiting reply of laravel-mix/laravel-mix#1246 Let me know if you require tests
I understand that this has been discussed before but this issue keeps bugging me so I thought I would have a crack at solving it in the cleanest way I could find in the hopes of a change of heart. I have modified the pluralizer to maintain case sensitivity on irregular words and also fixes the case matching on uppercase regular words. For example...
And if you accept this pull request.
Check out the implementation and if you sitll think this is too clunky then I will let it go but I think this is not a bad fix for the current inconsistency with the function.
Also discussed here #855