-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 204
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
Add sticky channel option #67
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
dc68506
to
909468d
Compare
909468d
to
2066ab4
Compare
Added a note on readme. |
With this option, all message will be sent to the default channel only. This is useful for dev environment when you want to concentrate all test message to a specific test channel.
2066ab4
to
6a311ec
Compare
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Except the single boolean cast everything is ok.
*/ | ||
public function isStickyChannel() | ||
{ | ||
return $this->sticky_channel; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This will force the result to be an boolean. Otherwise it can also be any other type.
return (bool) $this->sticky_channel;
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
According to the phpdoc, sticky_channel
must be a boolean and developpers should respect this.
Casting anything to a boolean is not the right way IMO.
When this project will use PHP >=7.0, then we will be able to use strict type instead.
Any news about this MR? Thanks. |
Closes #40
With this option, all message will be sent to the default channel only.
This is useful for dev environment when you want to concentrate all test message to a specific test channel.
This was dicussed for a long time on #40 but we finally get an agreement with @Gummibeer at #40 (comment) 😉
@maknz Could you please review the code and merge it if it looks OK? Thanks.