Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make the config filter a little more robust about what it accepts #242

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

doctormo
Copy link

Without this, hamster-gtk caused an error on Ubuntu 16.04 via virtualenv -> python2.7 + vext.gi

@elbenfreund
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for the PR. Most of my time is spend on the hamster-shell-extension right now as we try to get a new release out. So it may take some time until I can provide further feedback on this one.

If you would be so kind as to create an issue with more information about what problem this PR addresses, that would be most helpful!

@doctormo
Copy link
Author

Your project doesn't have the issue tracker switched on here. Although there isn't much more to say, it fixes a very specific error caused probably only in the very specific instance. It should be possible to shallow review this.

@elbenfreund
Copy link
Collaborator

elbenfreund commented Mar 26, 2018

Thanks for your feedback.

Your project doesn't have the issue tracker switched on here

True, and thanks to your comment I just realized that outside it is only contributing.rst that mentions the issue tracker over at JIRA

Although there isn't much more to say, it fixes a very specific error caused probably only in the very specific instance

The reason i suggested creating an issue was that it allows search engines to pick up on the particular error message thrown if anyone else encounters it as well as helps separating the documentation of the problem from the solution. A distinction that sometimes seems a bit tedious with more trivial issues.

. It should be possible to shallow review this.

The underlying issue is, at least in part, that clearly there is a significant mismatch betwen the docstring and the actual code. according to the docstring, we should not even accept string instances. While far from rocket sience, there seems to be more about this than just simply merging the PR as is.

Once again, I want to avoid to put you off with those remarks but rather shed some light on the general process. either way, we are very happy for your contribution!

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLA assistant check
Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants