Skip to content

Conversation

@marcochiesi
Copy link
Contributor

The original implementation was not correct because it was passing an unexpected value to the method "field" (it expects the field name).
The proposed implementation is a bit tricky because at the moment there's not an easy way to get the field names from the Attachments class.

The original implementation was not correct because it was passing an unexpected value to the method "field" (it expects the field name).
The proposed implementation is a bit tricky because at the moment there's not an easy way to get the field names from the Attachments class.
@jchristopher jchristopher merged commit f2c32a1 into jchristopher:master Dec 30, 2025
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.

2 participants