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

Allow Constraint widget in attribute type form to be empty so expression could be removed #9229

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 12, 2019

Conversation

troopa81
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Backport of #9032

Checklist

Reviewing is a process done by project maintainers, mostly on a volunteer basis. We try to keep the overhead as small as possible and appreciate if you help us to do so by completing the following items. Feel free to ask in a comment if you have troubles with any of them.

  • Commit messages are descriptive and explain the rationale for changes
  • Commits which fix bugs include fixes #11111 in the commit message next to the description
  • Commits which add new features are tagged with [FEATURE] in the commit message
  • Commits which change the UI or existing user workflows are tagged with [needs-docs] in the commit message and contain sufficient information in the commit message to be documented
  • I have read the QGIS Coding Standards and this PR complies with them
  • This PR passes all existing unit tests (test results will be reported by travis-ci after opening this PR)
  • New unit tests have been added for core changes
  • I have run the scripts/prepare-commit.sh script before each commit

@luipir luipir changed the title Allow Constraint widget in attribute type form to bempty so expression could be removed Allow Constraint widget in attribute type form to be empty so expression could be removed Feb 21, 2019
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Mar 7, 2019

The QGIS project highly values your contribution and would love to see this work merged! Unfortunately this PR has not had any activity in the last 14 days and is being automatically marked as "stale". If you think this pull request should be merged, please check

  • that all unit tests are passing

  • that all comments by reviewers have been addressed

  • that there is enough information for reviewers, in particular

    • link to any issues which this pull request fixes

    • add a description of workflows which this pull request fixes

    • add screenshots if applicable

  • that you have written unit tests where possible
    In case you should have any uncertainty, please leave a comment and we will be happy to help you proceed with this pull request.
    If there is no further activity on this pull request, it will be closed in a week.

@stale stale bot added the stale Uh oh! Seems this work is abandoned, and the PR is about to close. label Mar 7, 2019
@troopa81
Copy link
Contributor Author

troopa81 commented Mar 7, 2019

@3nids do you mid merging this PR ? It's just a backport of #9032 that you have merged few days ago

@stale stale bot removed the stale Uh oh! Seems this work is abandoned, and the PR is about to close. label Mar 7, 2019
@3nids
Copy link
Member

3nids commented Mar 7, 2019

well, the dox are not correct then. should be since QGIS 3.4.?

@troopa81
Copy link
Contributor Author

troopa81 commented Mar 7, 2019

well, the dox are not correct then. should be since QGIS 3.4.?

Not sure what you mean with the dox?

@m-kuhn
Copy link
Member

m-kuhn commented Mar 10, 2019

@troopa81
Copy link
Contributor Author

troopa81 commented Mar 11, 2019

OK, can you confirm that I have to change the version in both masterand release_3-4 branch to Since 3.4

@m-kuhn
Copy link
Member

m-kuhn commented Mar 11, 2019

It should be changed to \since 3.4.6.

@troopa81
Copy link
Contributor Author

I make the correction and created the PR #9480 to make the correction in master.

And then, I will backport the modification in 3.6

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.

3 participants