[5.x] Use enums for constant values#1300
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
Was this ready to merge or was there a backwards compatibility issue? |
Collaborator
Author
As far as I know we considered this ready to merge after fixing the failing tests. The only issue is that we have to be careful with updating projects to this version if we use any of these constants there. I wasn't able to find any compatibility issues with packages under the Rapidez namespace. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ref: RAP-1900
This PR replaces a bunch of
consts and a few hardcoded values with backed enums. This is a breaking change, as it removes a bunch of consts that may be used in projects using Rapidez. These are:Category::STATUS_*->CategoryStatus::*EavAttribute::ENTITY_TYPE_*->EntityType::*Product::STATUS_*->ProductStatus::*Product::VISIBILITY_*->Visibility::*Review::REVIEW_ENTITY_*->ReviewEntity::*It's very possible that I've missed some use cases. We can always update those when we come across them.