• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Not a bug StepRunnerUpgradeTrait functionality conflict with the Dev Docs

Affected version
2.0.0 Beta 2

DragonByte Tech

Well-known member
#1
In the dev docs, it says the following formats are valid: installStep1(), upgrade1000170Step(), upgrade1000170Step1() and uninstallStep1()

However, this is not the case: https://regex101.com/r/L4vp8r/1

As per the code, adding the 1 in the function name is required even if there is no step 2. Is the code or the docs the intended functionality?


Fillip
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
#3
In the dev docs, it says the following formats are valid: installStep1(), upgrade1000170Step(), upgrade1000170Step1() and uninstallStep1()
On my phone so struggling to find where it suggests omitting the step number from an upgrade step is supported. Could you point it out?

It’s the documentation that’s wrong if that’s the case. Documentation bugs are probably best logged on GitHub though.
 

NixFifty

Well-known member
#4
On my phone so struggling to find where it suggests omitting the step number from an upgrade step is supported. Could you point it out?

It’s the documentation that’s wrong if that’s the case. Documentation bugs are probably best logged on GitHub though.
This one:
In the dev docs, it says the following formats are valid: installStep1(), upgrade1000170Step(), upgrade1000170Step1() and uninstallStep1()