Log message #1485960

# At Username Text
# May 5th 2010, 14:32 ADmad this is the one and only channel for everything related to bakery :)
# May 5th 2010, 14:27 burzum was this the channel that is also used for bakery 2.0 development?
# May 5th 2010, 14:26 burzum hi
# May 3rd 2010, 23:13 Alevsk thanks Predominant
# May 3rd 2010, 23:13 Alevsk ha thanks for the information, im goint to join in the channel
# May 3rd 2010, 23:13 Predominant The best place to ask for help is in #cakephp
# May 3rd 2010, 23:11 Alevsk haa first of all thanks for answer me :)
# May 3rd 2010, 23:09 Predominant Maybe someone else will
# May 3rd 2010, 23:09 Predominant You can speak spanish. But I won't be able to understand it.
# May 3rd 2010, 23:08 Alevsk I have a question, im from Mexico so I speak spanish, can I speak spanish in this chat or only english(my english isnt very good)
# May 3rd 2010, 23:05 Predominant Yes
# May 3rd 2010, 23:04 Alevsk hello everbody, is somebody connected?
# May 3rd 2010, 23:01 Alevsk is the english the oficial languaje?
# May 3rd 2010, 21:42 logart00 Fatal error: Call to undefined method File::getAssociated() in /usr/local/cake/console/libs/tasks/test.php on line 311
# May 3rd 2010, 21:42 logart00 I am getting an error during a bake
# May 3rd 2010, 21:41 logart00 hello all
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:28 savant okay
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:28 ADmad savant: no, we are discussing a ticket regardign core
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:26 jose_zap maybe It was my fault :P
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:26 jose_zap ADmad: haha
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:25 savant are you all discussing the bakery?
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:25 ADmad i just copied one of the earlier case and modified so i blame you for it :P
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:24 jose_zap I think
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:24 jose_zap I'll commit the fix
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:24 ADmad mine ?
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:23 jose_zap The test case has a parenthese in a bad place
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:23 ADmad the suspense is killing me :)
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:23 jose_zap ADmad: I found why there were some funky thing in requiredField()
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:19 ADmad right
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:19 jose_zap magic
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:19 jose_zap it already does too much maginc
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:18 ADmad jose_zap: cool. lets see if he comes up anything else. as long as a field is not incorrect tagged as required i am fine with it. as for adding the required class we should stick to the pessimistic approach we currently have
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:16 jose_zap I think the same way
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:15 ADmad so there are possible grey areas and i think the code is fine the way it is
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:15 jose_zap yeah
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:14 ADmad *he should use
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:14 ADmad so if user wants to be sure of having the required class he use use the notEmpty rule imo
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:13 ADmad hmm yes it does in this case, but there can be other cases like say custom regex where empty is a valid value
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:12 jose_zap but allowEmpty does imply it, doesn't it?¡
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:12 ADmad it doesnt add the 'required' class because there is no 'notEmpty' rules
# Apr 30th 2010, 15:12 jose_zap no?