Make the flat file processor deprecated message more useful #14160
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
…inting the source
JoshuaLuckers
approved these changes
Nov 28, 2018
alroniks
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2018
ghost
mentioned this pull request
opengeek
approved these changes
Dec 3, 2018
alroniks
added
proposal
alroniks
pushed a commit
to alroniks/revolution
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 5, 2018
…14160] * upstream/pr/14160: Make the flat file processor deprecated message more useful for pinpointing the source
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does it do?
The new deprecated messages introduced in #14136 are being triggered now that 2.7 is out, but the one for flat file processors is missing some context. This PR changes that message a bit, to include the calling action and the path.
Why is it needed?
Previous message lacked the information needed to identify the problem:
Now, it's more helpful:
Related issue(s)/PR(s)
#14136, #14127