isabelle-dr
isabelle-dr
[Here is a summary](https://docs.google.com/document/d/189BoeeexPa0fXcMtZcCLCfEpMBQ6IKSbV0rPu-4CT44/edit#) of what was discussed during our first community meeting to confirm the needs and look at how to change the validator architecture for the 3.2 release....
Hello @mrajen27, thank you for fixing this issue so quickly! I left one comment requesting a change, besides this, it looks good 😊. Another thing: could you please [sign the...
@mrajen27, are you planning to continue working on this PR?
@aababilov, @bdferris, do you have an implementation of this notice?
Hello, a bit of both I think! :) I was wondering if (1) you had an existing implementation already, and (2) if you would be willing to implement it in...
Hello, thanks for flagging this @e-lo! 1. To this specific issue I could not reproduce the issue. I ran the validator on the dataset given in this PR, I got...
Hi @dhersz, thanks for opening this and sharing your thoughts above. I agree the logic we currently have here needs to be improved. We are looking into this issue this...
We usually don't add rules that are not clearly specified in the spec or best practices (this is the case here), but we make exceptions for what the community thinks...
We usually don't add rules that are not clearly specified in the spec or best practices (this is the case here), but we make exceptions for what the community thinks...