Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #28110, comment 8
- Timestamp:
- Nov 13, 2024, 10:56:10 AM (8 days ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #28110, comment 8
initial v1 26 26 27 27 After considering the options: 28 1. We add a note specifying that shadowing the re verse accessor in subclassesis 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.28 1. 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. 29 29 2. 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.) 30 30 3. 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.