Bug 23010 introduced a couple 'item(s)' occurrences which we've been trying to avoid.
Created attachment 190053 [details] [review] Bug 41340: Better translatability on 'batch_item_record_modification.inc' Signed-off-by: Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
+ [% tnx('{count} item modified', '{count} items modified', modified_items_count, { count = modified_items_count }) | html %] + [% tnx('(with {count} field modified).', '(with {count} fields modified).', modified_fields_count, { count = modified_fields_count }) | html %] It's not really helping to split the sentence here. However I don't see how we can have something perfect here. Maybe we remove the 'with' and have the number of fields in parenthesis, so we can still split. The idea would be: txn({count} item(s) modified) + '(' + txn({count} field(s) modified) + ')'
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #2) > The idea would be: > txn({count} item(s) modified) + '(' + txn({count} field(s) modified) + ')' How about this: ``` <span> [% tnx( '{count} item modified (with {modified_fields} field modified).', '{count} items modified (with {modified_fields} field modified).', modified_items_count, { count = modified_items_count modified_fields = modified_fields_count }) | html %] </span> ```
Created attachment 190064 [details] [review] Bug 41340: Better translatability on 'batch_item_record_modification.inc' Signed-off-by: Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io>
Created attachment 190142 [details] [review] Bug 41340: Better translatability on 'batch_item_record_modification.inc' Signed-off-by: Tomás Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@theke.io> Signed-off-by: David Nind <david@davidnind.com>
I've signed off based on the comments and reviewing the patch.