[1/3] issue594 & issue617 - make Record Screen compatible by rearranging types of some methods, tweaking validation, and so on to conform to util.BaseField
Updated 1 year, 5 months ago
| Ross Mellgren | Reviewers | ||
| rmm_wip_479_2.7 | |||
| 594, 617 | dchenbecker, dpp, timperrett, marius, charles, joni, atsuhiko, jorge, naftoli, kris, indrajit, alexb, dlouwers, mstarzyk, rmellgren, jhoffman, probinett, jmadsen, mhartmann, jstrachan, jgoday | ||
| None | LiftWeb-archive | ||
Required a good deal of hacking around.
Tried updated test-squerylrecord, however the screen acted "funny" (showing results sometimes not others, no validation). I have no idea if my screen configuration is correct or not, so I'd like someone who has more experience with Screen to tell me if it works as expected (Harry? Tim P? David?)
Posted 1 year, 5 months ago (August 24th, 2010, 5:15 a.m.)
I think all the toForm methods need an explicit return type so the compiler doesn't infer the return type to Empty (that happened in the Mapper stuff). Other than that, it looks like a really good change.
Posted 1 year, 5 months ago (August 24th, 2010, 5:15 a.m.)
I think all the toForm methods need an explicit return type so the compiler doesn't infer the return type to Empty (that happened in the Mapper stuff). Other than that, it looks like a really good change.
I compiled your branch locally and ran all of the MongoDB tests and they all pass. I also updated my personal code to run with this branch and everything looks good.
Review request changed
Updated 1 year, 5 months ago (August 24th, 2010, 2 p.m.)
-
- added Diff r2
Made all toForm overrides/defs have a type signature. Note that the test cases in lift-record did not really disappear, they're just in separate commits so when I diffed them this time I forgot to include the second commit
