Skip to content

Revert globalization of Swagger descriptions [2.x] #2621

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 16, 2016

Conversation

bajtos
Copy link
Member

@bajtos bajtos commented Aug 15, 2016

As discussed in SlackChat, Swagger descriptions should not be globalized. Translating Swagger is an open problem, see e.g. OAI/OpenAPI-Specification#274

@0candy please review

@0candy
Copy link
Contributor

0candy commented Aug 15, 2016

Other than the 1 comment, the rest LGTM.

@@ -7,12 +7,11 @@
* Module Dependencies.
*/

var g = require('strong-globalize')();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You can't remove this line. Other places in this file are using it and failing CI linter.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oh of course, this was not intentional. Will fix.

@bajtos bajtos force-pushed the fix/unglobalize-swagger-2x branch from 0220ea3 to 30df9ec Compare August 16, 2016 11:59
@bajtos bajtos force-pushed the fix/unglobalize-swagger-2x branch from 30df9ec to 7932d75 Compare August 16, 2016 12:02
@bajtos bajtos changed the title Rever globalization of Swagger descriptions [2.x] Revert globalization of Swagger descriptions [2.x] Aug 16, 2016
@bajtos bajtos merged commit 86d0bef into 2.x Aug 16, 2016
@bajtos bajtos deleted the fix/unglobalize-swagger-2x branch August 16, 2016 12:28
@bajtos bajtos removed the #review label Aug 16, 2016
@nacho4d
Copy link

nacho4d commented Sep 23, 2016

This was exactly what I was looking for. OAI/OpenAPI-Specification#274 was closed (by a missunderstanding I think) :( I wish this was not reverted

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants