Apologies for the long delay on both getting this patch in and 1.0.9. Our initial release of 1.0.9 completely broke merb-auth so we had to step back and rethink something related to the bootloader. We'll probably be doing a band-aid release today (for the double-init problem) and a long-term fix later this week.
Thanks for your patience! -- Yehuda 2009/2/3 Matt Aimonetti <[email protected]> > I applied the patches (thanks guys), we found an issue with 1.0.9 edge so > the release got delayed. > > Sorry about that, > > - Matt > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Bill Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Oh yay! It does look like it's been fixed and committed to the source. >> Now, we just need to wait until the next release (unless you're >> running on edge). >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 3, 7:03 am, Jacques Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Yep, it got merged into merb-core. I believe it's scheduled for >> > inclusion on 1.0.8 >> > >> > Here are the commit listings: >> http://github.com/wycats/merb/commits/1.0.x >> > >> > On Feb 3, 4:00 am, Tony Mann <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Jacques, >> > > Any word on whether this patch was accepted? Do we need to make more >> noise? >> > > :-) >> > >> > > ..tony.. >> > >> > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jacques Crocker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > I worked with Tony to get Cult Hero's patch spec'ed and available >> > > > easily from an up to date fork of 1.0.x. Patch seems to be working >> > > > great, and ready to be reviewed and merged in: >> > > >https://github.com/merbjedi/merb/commits/1.0.x >> > >> > > > We also made a fix for the radio_button helper which needed a >> :checked >> > > > option in order to turn it on or off by default. Here is a ticket to >> > > > the lighthouse bug on it that includes the patch >> > > >http://merb.lighthouseapp.com/projects/7433-merb/tickets/1209 >> > >> > > > Feedback welcome. Please let us know about any other issues with >> merb- >> > > > helpers and we can work together to get things fixed up and stable. >> > >> > > > Thanks >> > >> > > > On Jan 28, 3:23 pm, Jacques Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > They definitely are crucial to repair. So lets fix them. >> > >> > > > > I'll put some time in tonight to take a look and provide some >> > > > > assistance in getting the check_box form helpers spec'ed up and >> > > > > functional. Hopefully we can get it fixed and merged into the next >> > > > > 1.0.x release. >> > >> > > > > View helpers on Merb are great, but they do seem to have a few >> gaps. I >> > > > > usually work around the issues I've found (including the checkbox >> one) >> > > > > by just going back to manually generating the html (input fields). >> But >> > > > > it's much better if we focus on providing a fix for everyone by >> > > > > patching the framework. >> > >> > > > > On Jan 28, 2:47 pm, Tony Mann <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > While I am thinking about this, it seems like there is not an >> effective >> > > > test >> > > > > > suite for checking these helpers, since they remain broken from >> release >> > > > to >> > > > > > release. Is this the case? Are so few people using form helpers >> that >> > > > these >> > > > > > bugs are not crucial to repair? >> > > > > > ..tony.. >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Tony Mann < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > Another issue that needs a patch is that the :checked >> attribute does >> > > > not >> > > > > > > work in radio_button. This is referenced here: >> > >> > > > >> http://merb.lighthouseapp.com/projects/7433/tickets/1131-radio_group-... >> > >> > > > > > > It can be monkey_patched around as follows: >> > >> > > > > > > module Merb::Helpers::Form::Builder >> > > > > > > class Base >> > > > > > > def considered_true?(value) >> > > > > > > value && value != "false" && value != "0" && value != >> 0 >> > > > > > > end >> > >> > > > > > > def update_unbound_controls(attrs, type) >> > > > > > > case type >> > > > > > > when "checkbox" >> > > > > > > update_unbound_check_box(attrs) >> > > > > > > when "file" >> > > > > > > @multipart = true >> > > > > > > end >> > >> > > > > > > attrs[:disabled] ? attrs[:disabled] = "disabled" : >> > > > > > > attrs.delete(:disabled) >> > > > > > > attrs[:checked] ? attrs[:checked] = "checked" : >> > > > > > > attrs.delete(:checked) >> > > > > > > end >> > > > > > > end >> > > > > > > end >> > >> > > > > > > Do you think I need to file a new bug for this? My patch above >> is not >> > > > > > > perfect, since it overlaps the handling for checkboxes, so I >> would >> > > > need to >> > > > > > > tweak it a bit before submitting it. >> > >> > > > > > > ..tony.. >> > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Roy Wright < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> +1 >> > >> > > > > > >> It would be nice not to have to manually patch this every >> release... >> > >> > > > > > >> TIA, >> > > > > > >> Roy >> > >> > > > > > >> On Jan 28, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Jacques Crocker wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> > +1 >> > >> > > > > > >> > Patch looks good. Very simple check for "false", but its >> needed >> > > > for >> > > > > > >> > checkboxes to work correctly. Might be useful to throw in a >> few >> > > > specs >> > > > > > >> > for it (should be simple). >> > >> > > > > > >> > May be that Yehuda didn't see it (it wasn't assigned to >> anyone). I >> > > > > > >> > went ahead and fixed that on lighthouse >> > >> > > > > > >> > Please merge this patch into 1.0.8.2 if possible. >> > >> > > > > > >> > On Jan 28, 12:25 pm, Tony Mann <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > >> >> Well, we are not making enough noise, since bound >> checkboxes >> > > > > > >> >> *still* do not >> > > > > > >> >> work in 1.0.8.1. What will it take to get this patch in? >> > > > > > >> >> ..tony.. >> > >> > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:53 AM, Ted Han < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>> It was probably overlooked :\ >> > >> > > > > > >> >>> Let's see about making enough noise to get it included... >> :) >> > >> > > > > > >> >>> -knowtheory >> > >> > > > > > >> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:50 PM, phatmann < >> [email protected] >> > >> > > > > > >> >>> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> I see that this patch did not make it into 1.0.6 nor >> 1.0.7. Any >> > > > > > >> >>>> idea >> > > > > > >> >>>> why? As is, bound check_boxes and radio_buttons are >> essentially >> > > > > > >> >>>> broken. >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> ..tony.. >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>> On Dec 17 2008, 7:11 pm, cult hero < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> >>>>> I submitted the patch successfully: >> > >> > > > >> http://merb.lighthouseapp.com/projects/7433-merb/tickets/1138-patch-f >> > > > > > >> >>>>> . >> > > > > > >> >>> .. >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>> On Dec 17, 6:43 pm, cult hero <[email protected] >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> I've figured out what's causing the problem with >> checkboxes. >> > > > It >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> appears to be unrelated to the select and radio >> problems. >> > > > (I'll >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> look >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> into that later since I'm playing with the form stuff >> now >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> anyway.) In >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> the meantime, here's the problem: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> File: merb-helpers/lib/merb-helpers/form/builders.rb >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> def considered_true?(value) >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value && value != "0" && value != 0 >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> end >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> I noticed considered_true? was returning true when it >> didn't >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> seem like >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> it should. I checked the value of "value" being fed to >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> considered_true? by update_bound_check_box and it was >> "false" >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> when it >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> should have been. So it appeared that >> considered_true?(false) >> > > > was >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> returning true, which made no sense. However, looking >> further >> > > > I >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> got >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> this output: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value: false >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value.class: String >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value && value != "0" && value != 0: true >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value != "0": true >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value != 0: true >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> I presumed "value" was a boolean false. Turns out, >> it's a >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> String with >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> the value "false." >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> So, one possible solution is: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> def considered_true?(value) >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value && value != "false" && value != "0" && value >> != 0 >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> end >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> This works fine for me. However, what I don't know is >> whether >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> value, >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> which is retrieved from "val = control_value(method)" >> is >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> supposed to >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> be "false" (String) or false (FalseClass). Looking at >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> control_value it >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> appears to deliberately return a string. From what I >> can >> > > > tell, >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> the >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> above solution works though since considered_true? is >> only >> > > > called >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> inside update_bound_check_box, so it wouldn't affect a >> text >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> field with >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> the value "false" in any weird manner. >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> I've never submitted a patch before, but I found a >> guide on >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> using git >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> and I'm going to try in just a few minutes. I'm pretty >> new to >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> this >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> whole git thing! >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>> On Dec 17, 8:41 am, cult hero < >> [email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I hope it's a bug. I'll feel better about my own >> skill level >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> if it >> > > > > > >> >>> is! >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I try and limit the number of questions I ask around >> here in >> > > > a >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> day >> > > > > > >> >>> and >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> I'd already hit my quota just before I noticed this >> problem >> > > > last >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> night. I'm hesitant to start filing any bug reports >> until I >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> get some >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> level of confirmation here or have a higher level of >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> competence with >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> Merb. >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>> On Dec 17, 12:14 am, "Yehuda Katz" <[email protected] >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> This potentially sounds like a bug. I'll try and >> take a >> > > > look >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> at it >> > > > > > >> >>> in the >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> morning when I get in to work. Someone else reported >> a >> > > > similar >> > > > > > >> >>> issue with >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> radio_group to me this morning so I wonder if >> there's >> > > > something >> > > > > > >> >>> I'm missing >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> here. >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> -- Yehuda >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM, cult hero < >> > > > > > >> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> I started making my first forms today and things >> seem >> > > > smooth >> > > > > > >> >>> except... >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> The check_box field makes no sense to me at all. >> Here is >> > > > the >> > > > > > >> >>> code it >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> produces: >> > >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>> <input type="hidden" class="hidden" >> > > > name="person[is_active]" >> > > > > > >> >>> value="0"/ >> > > > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> <input >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more ยป >> >> > > > > -- Yehuda Katz Developer | Engine Yard (ph) 718.877.1325 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "merb" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/merb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
