Skip to content

Conversation

dtaylor113
Copy link
Member

Addresses Issues
#61 "Missing info. in Sparkline chart ng-docs"
#72 "If jQuery is not being used in application , than pfDonutPctChart directive having issue with $.extend function"

@waldenraines
Copy link

I personally think it's better to do one PR per issue. Also if you use "Fixes #" in your commit it will close the issue automatically on merge. See closing issues via commit messages.

@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ describe('Directive: pfSparklineChart', function() {

expect(isolateScope.config.data.x).toBe("dates");
expect(isolateScope.config.data.columns.length).toBe(2);
expect(isolateScope.config.data.columns[0][1]).toBe($scope.data.xData[1]);
expect(isolateScope.config.data.columns[0][1].toString()).toBe($scope.data.xData[1].toString());

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is the toString() necessary after these changes?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I believe the unit test was checking that the actual javascript objects were the same, after the change:
'+' scope.config = angular.merge({}, scope.defaultConfig, scope.config);
'-' scope.config = $.extend(true, angular.copy(scope.defaultConfig), scope.config);
They don't appear to be, even though their contents are the same. To me the angular.merge and the $.extend cmds should result in new javascript objects, so I'm not sure why/what is different between the commands. In other words, I wouldn't think the 'toString()' would be neccesary.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

@waldenraines
Copy link

I personally think it's better to do one PR per issue.

Disregard this, I didn't realize the issues were so closely related.

@waldenraines
Copy link

Also, the commit summary itself should be under 72 characters with extra info in the extended description, if necessary. Otherwise, LGTM.

Ok, thanks, go to know

  • Dave

@erundle
Copy link

erundle commented Sep 8, 2015

LGTM but I would rebase and update the commit message as Walden suggested.

Ok, fixed commit messages

  • DT

@waldenraines
Copy link

@dtaylor113 I don't think "addresses issue..." will close it. See the list of acceptable keywords for closing issues.

@dtaylor113 dtaylor113 changed the title Addresses Issues #61 and #72 This fixes #61 and fixes #72 Sep 8, 2015
@jeff-phillips-18
Copy link
Member

LGTM

jeff-phillips-18 added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 8, 2015
@jeff-phillips-18 jeff-phillips-18 merged commit fae6e80 into patternfly:master Sep 8, 2015
@waldenraines
Copy link

1 check was pending

❓ ❗

@jeff-phillips-18
Copy link
Member

Didn't realize the check was still pending...

@dtaylor113 dtaylor113 deleted the issue72 branch September 8, 2015 18:51
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.

4 participants