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

Additional fix for validation of hidden fields in non-repeating groups #82

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 10, 2022

Conversation

olemartinorg
Copy link
Contributor

Description

The last fix (#69) didn't account for the other way to reproduce this issue; by hiding the fields themselves, even though they are defined in a group that could be hidden instead. With this fix both variants work as expected.

Fixes

Verification

  • Your code builds clean without any errors or warnings
  • Manual testing done (required)
  • Relevant automated test added (if you find this hard, leave it and we'll help out)
  • All tests run green

Documentation

Copy link
Contributor

@lorang92 lorang92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

🥇

Remember to bump package.json 🙃

@olemartinorg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, that failing test right after merging #84 was embarrassing... 🙈 I'll look into it again!

@lorang92
Copy link
Contributor

Well, that failing test right after merging #84 was embarrassing... 🙈 I'll look into it again!

Oh no! 🙃 In my experience, If Jeeva has reported something as a bug it has a tendency to be an actual bug and not a faulty test. It might be worthwhile to investigate if this is actually a weakness in our current code.

@sonarqubecloud
Copy link

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

No Coverage information No Coverage information
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

@olemartinorg olemartinorg merged commit c5fe348 into main May 10, 2022
@olemartinorg olemartinorg deleted the bug/6398-round-2 branch May 10, 2022 10:40
olemartinorg pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 2, 2022
…amp for date picker component (#82)

The implementation actually defaults to 'undefined', and there is a strict check if the timestamp is set to 'false'.
The result of this check (timestamp === false) will only be true if timestamp is 'false'. 'undefined' (default) will not result in this check evaluating to 'true'.
@renovate renovate bot mentioned this pull request Nov 2, 2024
1 task
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.

2 participants