| # |
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? |