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

Mention that lifecycle callbacks do not support Embeddables #7230

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 17, 2020

Conversation

holtkamp
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed in #6855

@@ -240,6 +240,8 @@ a relevant lifecycle event. More than one callback can be defined for each
lifecycle event. Lifecycle Callbacks are best used for simple operations
specific to a particular entity class's lifecycle.

Note that Licecycle Callbacks can not be defined for Embeddables.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you use this syntax it will render it as a note box:

.. note::

    Note that Licecycle Callbacks can not be defined for Embeddables.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, I saw it. I was not sure if it is that important to mention this. Anyhow, added it!

@jwage jwage self-assigned this May 19, 2018
@stollr
Copy link
Contributor

stollr commented Oct 25, 2018

@jwage ping

@holtkamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jwage, can we wrap this up?

@SenseException
Copy link
Member

Maybe a rebase would be a good idea. Also: Since this is from 2018, is the target branch master still the right choice? Do we need to have this in 2.7 by now?

@holtkamp
Copy link
Contributor Author

@SenseException

Maybe a rebase would be a good idea.

Done!

Since this is from 2018, is the target branch master still the right choice? Do we need to have this in 2.7 by now?

Well, I do not know what the rules are for this aspect. I do know it is only about one line of documentation so it can do little harm?

@SenseException
Copy link
Member

Well, I do not know what the rules are for this aspect. I do know it is only about one line of documentation so it can do little harm?

There's AFAIK an upmerge strategy that lower branches will be merged with master. This way your contribution will appear in the other versions too.

@greg0ire
Copy link
Member

I rebased on 2.7 for you :)

@beberlei beberlei assigned greg0ire and unassigned jwage Feb 17, 2020
@greg0ire greg0ire closed this Feb 17, 2020
@greg0ire greg0ire reopened this Feb 17, 2020
@greg0ire
Copy link
Member

Just triggering the Travis build, I think I did things in the wrong order and the link was not established, now things look good :)

@greg0ire greg0ire merged commit e04a795 into doctrine:2.7 Feb 17, 2020
@greg0ire
Copy link
Member

Thanks @holtkamp !

@holtkamp holtkamp deleted the patch-2 branch February 29, 2020 17:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants