- Issue created by @dpi
- 🇦🇺Australia mstrelan
Makes sense. Similarly, if someone specifies an entityType that doesn't match the base class, what should we do? It's probably up to core to handle, but if we can infer it, why even make it an option at all?
- 🇦🇺Australia dpi Perth, Australia
if someone specifies an entityType that doesn't match the base class
Respect it as an override, or ignore and deprecated ;)
- Status changed to Needs work
about 1 year ago 1:06am 20 February 2024 - Status changed to Needs review
10 months ago 6:55am 2 July 2024 - 🇦🇺Australia mstrelan
Addressed feedback, please re-review. Considering changing the order of constructor params so bundle is first. That would give us the ability to annotate classes like this:
#[Bundle('article')] final class Article extends Node {} - 🇦🇺Australia dpi Perth, Australia
Considering changing the order of constructor params so bundle is first.
Seems fine.
Using attributes without named-arguments is an unsupported pattern, imo, for backwards compatibility concerns.
- 🇦🇺Australia mstrelan
I think we should deprecate entityType in 1.2.x and remove in 2.0.x. Have added a separate MR for 1.2.x and updated the 2.0.x MR to remove the entityType param.
