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

BUGFIX: Correct node naming scheme in nodetype definition example #5426

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 17, 2025

Conversation

Sebobo
Copy link
Member

@Sebobo Sebobo commented Jan 7, 2025

The example uses an outdated camelcase variant for node names.

Relates: Sebobo/Shel.Neos.Schema#26

Copy link
Contributor

@dlubitz dlubitz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you! This is absolutely right.

Copy link
Member

@mhsdesign mhsdesign left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks makes sense, though there is at least one someChild reference still in the text leftover.

@dlubitz
Copy link
Contributor

dlubitz commented Jan 8, 2025

@mhsdesign is referring to:

This adds a new ContentCollection called someChild to the default page.
It will be positioned before the main ContentCollection that the default page has.

In Line 75

The example uses an outdated camelcase variant for node names.
@Sebobo Sebobo force-pushed the bugfix/nodename-in-docs branch from 0c4ea9e to 82bf843 Compare January 13, 2025 10:09
@Sebobo
Copy link
Member Author

Sebobo commented Jan 13, 2025

Thx, adjusted the mentioned name

@Sebobo Sebobo requested a review from mhsdesign January 13, 2025 10:10
@dlubitz dlubitz dismissed mhsdesign’s stale review January 16, 2025 09:29

Requested change was changed.

@crydotsnake crydotsnake merged commit fe4a481 into 8.3 Jan 17, 2025
9 checks passed
@dlubitz dlubitz deleted the bugfix/nodename-in-docs branch January 17, 2025 07:39
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.

4 participants