Not a bug StepRunnerUpgradeTrait functionality conflict with the Dev Docs

[DragonByte Tech]

Affected version

2.0.0 Beta 2

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

 

[Mike]

The code would be intended -- if you use a step runner trait, you must always use step numbers.

 

[Chris D]

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.

 

[Naz]

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()

 

[Chris D]

I meant where in the documentation. I can see it now (https://xf2demo.xenforo.com/dev-docs/add-on-structure/#setup-class).

If you could log it as an issue here that would be super: https://github.com/xenforo-ltd/docs/issues

 

[DragonByte Tech]

Done: https://github.com/xenforo-ltd/docs/issues/16


Fillip