https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=28700
--- Comment #40 from Martin Renvoize <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #39) > (In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #20) > > > > kidclamp> should we just address this per case? do we need a global > > solution? i.e. we know if we touch an object variable we can introduce this > > problem, so we should know to fetch from storage if an unblessed is need > > kidclamp> yes, asking why we want to build it into logging rather than place > > responsibility on the caller > > I tend to agree here. What is the biggest problem items with datetimes, as > referred to in first comment? Others? That's the entire point of my patch... generally, the expectation of unblessed is that it returns a hash of the object data.. thus catching when that is likely to not be the case and throwing an error to get the developer to check seems like the right thing to do.. In short: kidclamp> should we just address this per case? Yes kidclamp> if we touch an object variable we can introduce this problem, so we should know to fetch from storage if an unblessed is need. My patch makes that more explicit by throwing an exception when the object has been touched. Jonathan> I was suggesting to pass the object, yes. That's a big change requiring all calls to logaction be looked at.. that's kinda the same as my patch.. it also requires all calls to unblessed be looked at and prevents future regressions in calls to unblessed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
