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

[REF] Rename SoftDeleteEntity -> SoftDeleteActionTrait #22944

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2022

Conversation

colemanw
Copy link
Member

Overview

2nd attempt to correctly name this trait.

Before

In #22662 it was renamed to SoftDeleteEntity but that's incorrect, this trait is used by action classes not entity classes.

After

Now named SoftDeleteActionTrait for consistency with other action traits, e.g. ArrayQueryActionTrait, DAOActionTrait, CustomValueActionTrait.

The trait is used by actions, not by entities.
@civibot
Copy link

civibot bot commented Mar 14, 2022

(Standard links)

@civibot civibot bot added the 5.48 label Mar 14, 2022
@colemanw colemanw changed the title Rename SoftDeleteEntity -> SoftDeleteActionTrait [REF} Rename SoftDeleteEntity -> SoftDeleteActionTrait Mar 14, 2022
@colemanw colemanw changed the title [REF} Rename SoftDeleteEntity -> SoftDeleteActionTrait [REF] Rename SoftDeleteEntity -> SoftDeleteActionTrait Mar 14, 2022
@colemanw
Copy link
Member Author

I put this up against 5.48 because although not technically a regression, it was incorrectly renamed in 5.47, so I think we should get the name right sooner rather than later.

@colemanw
Copy link
Member Author

FYI @braders @demeritcowboy you guys were OK with the last rename.

@demeritcowboy
Copy link
Contributor

Checked universe. Nobody seems to be using the old new name.

@demeritcowboy demeritcowboy merged commit 85be684 into civicrm:5.48 Mar 14, 2022
@colemanw colemanw deleted the SoftDeleteActionTrait branch March 14, 2022 18:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants