refactor: Represent RFCs as their own DocType #5835
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
||
| State = apps.get_model("doc", "State") | ||
| draft_rfc_state = State.objects.get(type_id="draft", slug="rfc") | ||
| rfc_published_state = State.objects.get(type_id="rfc", slug="published") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note to self: need to depend on the name migration so that the rfc type exists.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The renaming of
rfc_number()todeprecated_rfc_number()only changed uses in Python code, not templates. I had to rename the method because it otherwise shadowed the newrfc_numberfield.