[FrameworkBundle][Console] JsonDescriptor: Respect original output #21501
Conversation
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
|
AFAIK, the pretty-printing of empty arrays depends on the PHP version |
|
I tried myself with both PHP 5.6, 7.0 and 7.1. |
|
A quick test on https://3v4l.org/uLA1g seems to confirm there is no difference regarding empty arrays between PHP versions (at least those ones). :) |
nicolas-grekas
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2017
…nal output (ogizanagi) This PR was merged into the 2.7 branch. Discussion ---------- [FrameworkBundle][Console] JsonDescriptor: Respect original output | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | 2.7 | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | no | Fixed tickets | N/A | License | MIT | Doc PR | N/A I'm suggesting this one, because I recently pushed some changes to the descriptors, and of course, I'm not editing expected output fixtures by hand, but by dumping the real output to fixture files. But it's tiring to get false positive diffs when reviewing it. Descriptor tests already are painful enough 😅 This PR respects the way elements are actually output. If it's ok to you, I'll submit some other PRs to upper branches, because there are more issues regarding this (items order for instance). If it causes too much troubles getting this in sync with upper branches, let's close this and never talk about it anymore 😄 Commits ------- 08dd70b [FrameworkBundle][Console] JsonDescriptor: Respect original output
|
merged up to master, cleaned. thanks @ogizanagi |
nicolas-grekas
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2017
…nal output (ogizanagi) This PR was merged into the 2.8 branch. Discussion ---------- [FrameworkBundle][Console] JsonDescriptor: Respect original output | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | 2.8 | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | BC breaks? | no | Deprecations? | no | Tests pass? | no | Fixed tickets | N/A | License | MIT | Doc PR | N/A Follows up #21501. This one fixes the keys order (preserved from the order those keys are added from the `JsonDescriptor`), as for the previous mentioned PR, in order to slightly improve the situation when updating the descriptors fixtures. @nicolas-grekas : Thanks for taking care of the previous one. There are two other PRs required to me in order to fix everything on every branches, but I wonder if it wouldn't be easier (and reduce noise) to apply the following patches while merging this in upper branches instead: - 3.2: ogizanagi@51a0a1c - master: ogizanagi@b35a244 WDYT? Commits ------- bf71776 [FrameworkBundle][Console] JsonDescriptor: Respect original output
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
I'm suggesting this one, because I recently pushed some changes to the descriptors, and of course, I'm not editing expected output fixtures by hand, but by dumping the real output to fixture files. But it's tiring to get false positive diffs when reviewing it. Descriptor tests already are painful enough 😅
This PR respects the way elements are actually output. If it's ok to you, I'll submit some other PRs to upper branches, because there are more issues regarding this (items order for instance).
If it causes too much troubles getting this in sync with upper branches, let's close this and never talk about it anymore 😄