Some missed "hungarian apps" notation for function parm prefixing #273
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
PLEASE TEST THOROUGHLY! Applies to OpenUserJS#264
|
I've gone through the entire file line by line, but I want to do some more testing tomorrow before merging. |
sizzlemctwizzle
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2014
Some missed "hungarian apps" notation for function parm prefixing
Martii
pushed a commit
to Martii/OpenUserJS.org
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 4, 2014
* Currently pro returns a 502 and dev returns the error when trying to submit a change to an OUJS collaboration... this *should* fix that... works on dev. Refs: * OpenUserJS#273 * OpenUserJS#264
Martii
removed
the
needs testing
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PLEASE TEST THOROUGHLY!
Applies to #264
I'm not the expert here with authentications for OUJS so please make sure there isn't a loophole opened by mistake. I'm not marking as PR ready until this is validated by another as absolutely correct... a lot of this will disappear once our code base is more standardized and readable.