IRC logs for #farmOS, 2026-09-03 (GMT)

2026-09-02
2026-09-04
TimeNickMessage
[07:55:28]<mstenta[m]>FYI I have a conflict during the first part of the dev call today. I'll try to join late if I can.
[11:59:51]<symbioquine[m]>farmOS dev call on now - all are welcome! https://meet.jit.si/farmos-dev
[12:31:51]<symbioquine[m]>ACTION uploaded an image: (280KiB) < https://matrix.org/oftc/media/v1/media/download/AWfsbo3Cu19g1VDXQsamOqwL... >
[14:21:22]<mstenta[m]>symbioquine: FYI I left a comment and minor nit-pick review on https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS/pull/1100
[14:21:48]<mstenta[m]>Overall I think it looks good
[14:22:02]<mstenta[m]>The (string) casting would only be an issue if we ever wanted to add a non-scalar "supported property" in the future.
[14:22:49]<mstenta[m]>I can't really think of an example where that would be needed
[14:23:25]<mstenta[m]>And if there is, presumably we would add tests at the same time and realize that the string cast breaks it, and adjust accordingly.
[14:23:36]<symbioquine[m]>Sounds good
[14:23:49]<mstenta[m]>So I'm inclined to approve this, pending the very minor comment nit I requested :-)
[14:24:36]<symbioquine[m]>Seems like it should be merged then and if we decide to combine those code paths, that would be a separate/future change.
[14:25:37]<symbioquine[m]>Maybe worth adding tests to show how the cast behaves with complex/unexpected nested elements.
[14:26:06]<mstenta[m]>And regarding the "was this AI generated" question, I'm not worried about it, for the same reasons I gave earlier regarding Greg's PR: 1) the actual functional change is minimal (under the 15-line threshold that GCC uses, if we were to adopt that), and 2) the tests don't matter from a GPL perspective.
[14:27:17]<mstenta[m]>Let's add this as a topic for the upcoming monthly call, though... so we can nail down our own policy :-)
[14:27:20]<symbioquine[m]>symbioquine[m]: Ah, I see you already captured that in your feedback.
[14:28:35]<mstenta[m]>Oops... weird... OK... GitHub is acting weird
[14:29:01]<mstenta[m]>I accidentally commented twice... the second one was what I wrote first, and then discarded it...
[14:29:19]<mstenta[m]>Don't understand what happened there...
[14:29:58]<mstenta[m]>I actually removed the bit about your suggestion for adding a test in my final comment...
[14:30:40]<mstenta[m]>But I'll preserve it now in this second comment, and remove the duplicated sentences 😅
[14:32:03]<mstenta[m]>Oh I see what happened... I had copied that first draft comment into the overall "Review" text box and forgot to remove it.
[14:32:23]<mstenta[m]>Ignore my ramblings... 😆