[WIP] Documenting the Validator component #3710
Conversation
| You can install the component in 2 different ways: | ||
|
|
||
| * :doc:`Install it via Composer </components/using_components>` (``symfony/validator`` on `Packagist`_); | ||
| * Use the official Git repository (https://github.com/symfony/Validator). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are we doing everywhere the https:// and not the git@github.com? just curious
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using git@github.com requires setting up SSH for your account, which does not provide any value when accessing public reposiitories in a read-only way (it used to be reserved to collaborators btw, but I think this has changed)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah and it is far a better practice to get people into contributing and learning. We shouldn't assume all are read-only people 👶
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the component repos are read-only, so it's only for read-only people. And if you want to contribute, you look into the contributing docs and not this docs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And the https url is not a read-only URL either (and anyway, even contributors should not push to the symfony repo directly but to their fork, as everything goes through PRs even for the core team)
| ----- | ||
|
|
||
| The Validator component allows you to use very advanced validation rules, but | ||
| it is also really easy to do easy validation tasks. For instance, if you want |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say "do easy validation tasks with it"... Don´t you think the sentence is a bit weird right now?
|
Nice work so far! I am embarrassed I never found the time to do it, thanks for the big effort @wouterj Just added some stylistic comments and typos. I am not native, though, so happy to discuss and obviously feel free to refuse any of my proposals |
|
I'm happy to see you back here, @ricardclau ! I'll look at your comments later this week. |
|
I am about to finish a very intense side project that has kept me busy longer than I expected... let´s hope I can contribute again from time to time! Again, feel free to reject / accept any of my comments, most of them are just rephrasing and things like that, and maybe they will clash with the current style of the documentation. |
|
@wouterj What's the state here? |
|
In queue. I've not forgotten this one, but there are more important things to do. The validator component already has a great doc in The Book. |
|
Alright. Let me know if I can help you with this. |
|
Closing, I don't see any time or motivation to work on this in the coming time. If anyone wants to take it over, feel free to base on this PR (I'll leave the branch in my fork). |
|
sorry to hear this is not continued ⌛ |
|
@wouterj I will continue your work, big thanks ! |
|
@mickaelandrieu What is the current state of the documentation? |
|
@mickaelandrieu I'm glad to hear that, thank you very much! |
|
@mickaelandrieu my advice would be to not make everything in one pull request. Even Wouter, who is used and loves to write documentation, abandoned this one. Remember that having some docs is better that having none :) |
|
thank you @mickaelandrieu |
|
@javiereguiluz yeah, I know but I'm pretty sure nothing will be accepted if it is incomplete :/ If you have time for it, I will (realy) appreciate a pre-validation from you before push any contribution :) |
|
@mickaelandrieu I would gladly help you. Sadly, I can't help you because I don't have enough experience with the Validator and Form components, so I don't understand them. |
|
@mickaelandrieu the complete task of writing Validator component docs can be split into a couple seperate PRs without being incomplete. For instance, a good first step would be to have the standard Introduction + Installation sections and some docs to set up the Validator, referencing the book article for the other information. In a next PR, some sections from book can be moved to the components docs. |
I started documenting one of the last missing components (only
BrowserKit needs some love after this).
This might become just another refactoring of the documentation, since
it'll duplicate a lot of
book/validation. I don't think it's a problemif we do the same thing as we did with the translation documentation?
(that was a test, but I think it has gone well?)
Todo
violations, like translation, presentation, debugging, etc.)
Todo after this PR is merged (will be transformed into issues)
/cc @ricardclau, @webmozart