Skip to content

serialize: .param - don't use ajaxSettings.traditional as a default value #3030

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

Conversation

sowcow
Copy link

@sowcow sowcow commented Mar 31, 2016

(Fixes #3023)

@mention-bot
Copy link

By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @jaubourg, @markelog and @dmethvin to be potential reviewers

@jquerybot
Copy link

Thank you for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a jQuery Foundation project, if so we need you to sign our Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

📝 Please visit http://contribute.jquery.org/CLA/ to sign.

After you signed, the PR is checked again automatically after a minute. If there's still an issue, please reply here to let us know.


If you've already signed our CLA, it's possible your git author information doesn't match your CLA signature (both your name and email have to match), for more information, check the status of your CLA check.

@sowcow sowcow force-pushed the iss-3023-serialize-param-dont-use-ajaxsettings-traditional branch from 0449df5 to c5c3860 Compare April 1, 2016 14:54
@dmethvin
Copy link
Member

dmethvin commented Apr 4, 2016

This LGTM, can I land it before we do the beta? If so I want to make a note in the upgrade guide since it's a breaking change, even tho we documented it had changed as of 1.8 as #3023 mentioned.

@markelog
Copy link
Member

markelog commented Apr 4, 2016

This LGTM, can I land it before we do the beta?

You mean rc? +1 from me, we should land it while we have a chance!


params = { "param1": null };
assert.equal( jQuery.param( params, false ), "param1=", "Make sure that null params aren't traversed." );
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's okay to leave the explicit false cases in here, right?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess it depends on what provides more value here - explicitness, or tests that are closer to how it is expected to be used. Explicitness is related to better maintability in a way?

@dmethvin
Copy link
Member

@sowcow will you be able to get to this soon?

@dmethvin
Copy link
Member

Don't land this PR as it is incorporated into gh-3081 and I'll just close this PR when that one lands.

@dmethvin
Copy link
Member

BTW, thanks for your help @sowcow! 🌟

@dmethvin dmethvin closed this in 4f27042 Apr 27, 2016
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 18, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants