Replies: 7 comments
|
confirm, this is really needed for using the translation editor properly |
|
We have detected this issue has not had any activity during the last 90 days. That could mean this issue is no longer relevant and/or nobody has found the necessary time to address the issue. We are trying to keep the list of open issues limited to those issues that are relevant to the majority and to close the ones that have become 'stale' (inactive). If no further activity is detected within the next 14 days, the issue will be closed automatically. |
|
This issue has been closed automatically due to inactivity (as mentioned 14 days ago). Feel free to re-open the issue if you believe it is still relevant. |
|
AFAIK still an issue and needed |
|
It is still an issue, and it is really important for localizers and translators. It should not be triaged, and it shot not be defined as a minor issue imho. |
|
How can we re-open this? |
|
I have reopened but moved this to a discussion since this is not actionable until we have a developer that actually indicates wanting to tackle this. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Description of problem
The Resource File Verification is a good tool to find out what work has to be done. But compared to older DNN versions I am missing the test of missing translations, i.e. if an entry is not there in an existing file. The "Files older than system default" is not helpful in this case, as most of them did not change for years (and still are valid).
Description of solution
There should be a test for this. Language files are vital for the DNN worldwide success, and every tool given to those who create them helps that more language files are available.
All reactions