Sylius: Why doesn't Core/Model/Image use TimestampableTrait ?
Hi,
Shouldn't Core/Model/Image use the TimestampableTrait ?
For now, $createdAt is declared dynamically in its constructor.
If it isn't done on purpose, I can create a PR to fix this.
Cheers.
leogout
All 5 comments
I am 馃憤 !
pjedrzejewski
on 10 Nov 2016
Shouldn't we remove createdAt instead? I don't think we need image to be timestampable.
pamil
on 14 Nov 2016
Agree with @pamil. Fields like createdAt and updatedAt on image are not used in Core and should not be required for all images. If someone find such fields useful, he will need some customization anyway so he can also add them as it's super easily.
michalmarcinkowski
on 14 Nov 2016
On the other hand, cost of maintaining this feature in the core is low (pretty much none) - customizing it is easy, although will be repetitive for many. I can see a use-case for knowing when product image was added or edited.
pjedrzejewski
on 14 Nov 2016
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had any recent activity. It will be closed in a week if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
![stale[bot] picture](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1724?v=4&s=40)
stale[bot]
on 4 Dec 2017
Related issues
mezoni
路
3Comments
stefandoorn
路
3Comments
stefandoorn
路
3Comments
ping86
路
3Comments
loic425
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
On the other hand, cost of maintaining this feature in the core is low (pretty much none) - customizing it is easy, although will be repetitive for many. I can see a use-case for knowing when product image was added or edited.