Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #28110, comment 8


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 13, 2024, 10:56:10 AM (8 days ago)
Author:
Clifford Gama

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #28110, comment 8

    initial v1  
    2626
    2727After considering the options:
    28 1. We add a note specifying that shadowing the reverse accessor in subclasses is not allowed. This option would add clarity but doesn't solve the problem directly. While useful, it doesn't address the fact that the error message is misleading by treating the reverse accessor like a field. This solution would not directly resolve the misunderstanding caused by the current error message.
     281. We add a note specifying that shadowing the related accessor is not allowed. This option would add clarity but doesn't solve the problem directly. While useful, it doesn't address the fact that the error message is misleading by treating the reverse accessor like a field. This solution would not directly resolve the misunderstanding caused by the current error message.
    29292. Two messages in the check models.006, depending on whether the clash is between a field and a field or a field and an accessor. This approach would overload models.E006 to handle two separate cases, which I don't believe acceptable. (Each check ID for a single check.)
    30303. Create a new models.00xx error for this specific check. This option would maintain clear separation between different checks. However, it may be over-engineering for this small issue, and may lead to a bit more overhead in terms of adding and managing error codes.
Back to Top