Skip to content

Conversation

@djangodeveloper96
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for contributing to Wagtail! 🎉

Before submitting, please review the contributor guidelines https://docs.wagtail.io/en/latest/contributing/index.html and check the following:

  • Do the tests still pass? (https://docs.wagtail.io/en/latest/contributing/developing.html#testing)
  • Does the code comply with the style guide? (Run make lint from the Wagtail root)
  • For Python changes: Have you added tests to cover the new/fixed behaviour?
  • For front-end changes: Did you test on all of Wagtail’s supported environments?
    • Please list the exact browser and operating system versions you tested.
    • Please list which assistive technologies you tested.
  • For new features: Has the documentation been updated accordingly?

gasman and others added 30 commits December 8, 2016 16:47
…oid(0)" instead - fixes #3208

The stopPropagation() call was too eager, as this blocked legitimate clicks on the links in the 'more' dropdown.

Yes, I know javascript:void(0) is evil, but it's less evil than href="#" in that it doesn't have side effects. And if the design calls for an element that has the same styling and interactions as an `<a>` element but just happens to trigger an in-page action rather than navigating to a new URL, I don't see why I should jump through hoops undoing the native style of an alternative element like `<button>` to achieve something that's perfectly simple to do the 'evil' way, and as far as I'm aware has no negative effects other than to cause HTML purists to roll their eyes. SO THERE.
`page.get_children` was changed earlier to `blogpages` in order to show the blog posts ordered and hide the unpublished ones
Gulp 3.x is currently incompatible with Node 7: gulpjs/gulp#1843

Fixes #3253
…he Google group (#3255)

We plan to put additional resources into support on Stack Overflow, based on feedback at https://twitter.com/WagtailCMS/status/801384753589080064
…ially different

This prevents the migration engine from optimising them away - see wagtail/wagtail#3293 (comment)
…ggered by post_save signals

test_removes_object wrongly asserted that the 'add' method (not 'delete') was called; this should have failed, but didn't, because the mock was picking up the 'add' call that happened during object creation as a result of the post_save signal. Here we insert calls to .reset_mock() to stop the signals from interfering with the tests, and fix the broken assertion that was masked by this bug.
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.

5 participants