Skip to content

Conversation

@c33s
Copy link

@c33s c33s commented Aug 26, 2019

Q A
Branch? 2.0 would maybe also make sense to backport it
Bug fix? yes (for me yes)
New feature? no
BC breaks? yes (kind of, if someone buld upon this fallback)
Deprecations? no
Tests pass? ?
Fixed tickets #1132
License MIT
Doc PR

alredy commented in #1132 (comment) but i thought a PR is more visible to get comments.

haven't tried to run or fix tests because first it makes sense to know if you would merge this.

@michellesanver michellesanver self-assigned this Oct 4, 2019
@michellesanver
Copy link
Contributor

michellesanver commented Oct 4, 2019

Thanks for this PR! I would definitely merge this bugfix and release in 3.0 as it is indeed a slight BC break. I'd be super happy if you go ahead and fix the related tests.

@c33s
Copy link
Author

c33s commented Oct 6, 2019

sounds great. will have a look at the tests this week

@lsmith77 lsmith77 changed the base branch from master to 2.x January 5, 2021 12:49
@dbu dbu added Level: Bug 🐞 This item involves a legitimate regression (bug) to existing functionality. State: Need To Investigate 🔎 This item requires additional investigation to determine a resolution. labels Oct 12, 2021
@dbu
Copy link
Member

dbu commented Oct 12, 2021

i don't think we can simply remove the default resolver. maybe we could add it in the extension class instead of the configuration class to avoid the problem when merging configurations?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Level: Bug 🐞 This item involves a legitimate regression (bug) to existing functionality. State: Need To Investigate 🔎 This item requires additional investigation to determine a resolution.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants