-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 175
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
Changes 25: New Changes Class #6690
Conversation
Another thought: we could also stores this in a dedicated file in the |
I thought about this as well. Storing it in the site.txt really isn't that great after all. I was also thinking about a new /site/accounts/users.txt I like site/log, but my only concern is that it would be a new directory that needs write permissions. |
6d4f96a
to
0f0b079
Compare
I do like |
That's basically why I still went for the site.txt after all. Each alternative solution has potential pitfalls that we need to think through. That's why I thought I really want to get the functionality done first and we can still change the location later. I know that there are a lot of "let's think about this later" points at the moment, but I honestly feel like we won't ever get this done if we don't approach it more pragmatically right now. |
Ok, let's leave it with the |
0f0b079
to
027136f
Compare
The test coverage report is again completely wrong. I have no idea why this is failing so often to even recognize the @Covers annotations. So annoying. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Me neither. There are factual unit tests covering the methods marked as uncovered.
Description
This is replicating #6681
Summary of changes
Kirby\Content\Changes
class to track changed models in thesite.txt
Changelog
Enhancements
Kirby\Content\Changes
class to track changed models in thesite.txt
Docs
Ready?
For review team