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

[Workflow] Fix configuration node reference for "initial_marking" #35289

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 10, 2020

Conversation

@phansys
Copy link
Contributor

phansys commented Jan 9, 2020

Q A
Branch? 4.3
Bug fix? no
New feature? no
Deprecations? no
Related to #30890
License MIT
@OskarStark

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

OskarStark commented Jan 10, 2020

But initial_places was also a thing and should not be removed from the README, shouldn’t it?

Even this line was not introduced in your referenced PR #30890 🤔

Or do you mean to skip 2 iterations which were both introduced in 4.3 go straight to initial_marking?

@OskarStark

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

OskarStark commented Jan 10, 2020

friendly ping @lyrixx

@phansys

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

phansys commented Jan 10, 2020

In the last release from 4.2 branch (v4.2.12), the configuration node is called "initial_place":

if (1 === \count($workflows) && isset($workflows['workflows']) && array_keys($workflows['workflows']) !== range(0, \count($workflows) - 1) && !empty(array_diff(array_keys($workflows['workflows']), ['audit_trail', 'type', 'marking_store', 'supports', 'support_strategy', 'initial_place', 'places', 'transitions']))) {

In the first release from 4.3 branch (v4.3.0), the configuration node is called "initial_marking":
if (1 === \count($workflows) && isset($workflows['workflows']) && array_keys($workflows['workflows']) !== range(0, \count($workflows) - 1) && !empty(array_diff(array_keys($workflows['workflows']), ['audit_trail', 'type', 'marking_store', 'supports', 'support_strategy', 'initial_marking', 'places', 'transitions']))) {

So, answering your question, I think yes:

Or do you mean to skip 2 iterations which were both introduced in 4.3 go straight to initial_marking?

The related commit is 1af1bf2.

@lyrixx
lyrixx approved these changes Jan 10, 2020
@fabpot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

fabpot commented Jan 10, 2020

Thank you @phansys.

fabpot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2020
…_marking" (phansys)

This PR was merged into the 4.3 branch.

Discussion
----------

[Workflow] Fix configuration node reference for "initial_marking"

| Q             | A
| ------------- | ---
| Branch?       | 4.3
| Bug fix?      | no
| New feature?  | no
| Deprecations? | no
| Related to       | #30890
| License       | MIT

Commits
-------

452f925 [Workflow] Fix configuration node reference for "initial_marking"
@fabpot fabpot merged commit 452f925 into symfony:4.3 Jan 10, 2020
1 of 3 checks passed
1 of 3 checks passed
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build failed
Details
fabbot.io Doing some proofreading and checking your coding style.
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@phansys phansys deleted the phansys:workflow_upgrade_5 branch Jan 10, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.