search

rmariuzzo / Laravel-JS-Localization

🌐 Convert your Laravel messages and consume them in the front-end!
https://github.com/rmariuzzo/laravel-js-localization
MIT License
598 stars 171 forks source link

V1.9.1 is completely broken #171

Open SanderSander opened 2 years ago

SanderSander commented 2 years ago

This commit broke a lot:

https://github.com/rmariuzzo/Laravel-JS-Localization/commit/9e570ee76466cb6529651fd43faf3f33af133e9c

When the default directory is used: The following error is triggered because of a missing DIRECTORY_SEPERATOR

[Exception] /workspaceresources/lang doesn't exists!

Also i'm sure version 4 of laravel doesn't work because the $langs variable is overwriten, and therefor it also misses the /

Chomiciak commented 2 years ago

@SanderSander just a while ago I've created a comment addressing the problem https://github.com/rmariuzzo/Laravel-JS-Localization/pull/170#issuecomment-1228433980

The problem is disappearing slash /. The version should be removed as soon as possible.

rmariuzzo commented 2 years ago

I apologize, will try to remove the version ASAP. 😞

SanderSander commented 2 years ago

https://github.com/rmariuzzo/Laravel-JS-Localization/pull/172 I made a PR that fixes the problem

rmariuzzo commented 2 years ago

I removed the broken version from Packagist, I think that should help for now: https://packagist.org/packages/mariuzzo/laravel-js-localization

rmariuzzo commented 2 years ago

172 I made a PR that fixes the problem

I review your PR, looks fine to me. @SanderSander and @Chomiciak can you check the PR too? 🙇

Chomiciak commented 2 years ago

@rmariuzzo Thank you very much for your fast response :)

I suppose you should give the version a different tag on packagist, to ensure people re-download this patched version.

Over all, this is a feature addition, so shouldn't it be updated on the 2nd digit (1.10/1.10.0), not the 3rd (1.9.1)? Generally most packages reserve 3rd digit for patches.

SanderSander commented 2 years ago

@rmariuzzo Thank you very much for your fast response :)

I suppose you should give the version a different tag on packagist, to ensure people re-download this patched version.

Over all, this is a feature addition, so shouldn't it be updated on the 2nd digit (1.10/1.10.0), not the 3rd (1.9.1)? Generally most packages reserve 3rd digit for patches.

I made the same suggestion for versioning in the PR :)

rmariuzzo commented 2 years ago

Thank you both for your good advices. I appreciate it.