Skip to content

Conversation

@pgilad
Copy link
Contributor

@pgilad pgilad commented Jun 23, 2015

This fixes the previous faulty commit of d0388e9 on the compat branch.

The changes of that commit were reverted and the new (hopefully) correct changes were added again.

@pgilad pgilad changed the title Core: organize prop & attr code to be similar Fix: organize prop & attr code to be similar Jun 23, 2015
@markelog
Copy link
Member

/cc @gibson042, since you reviewed pr to master

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This existed in the code before my previous commit. See

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't exist in current compat:

"../selector"

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes because that was a bad merge from master by yours truly 😊

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, ok :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was thinking to unite those commits so revert one would go away and from history stand point, it would be just support commit

Now we're commenting on a Frankenstein diff...

nicely put, lol

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO it's harder to see the logic of the change when it's modifying the previous bad merge.

But however your prefer, just my opinion.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I wonder, we don't have it in master plus it seems we don't use this declaration, test doesn't fail without it. Maybe it is needed to build this module and that is indirect dependency?

@timmywil? We can deal with this later though

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My guess is it's leftover from a prop hook for retrieving button value or something. It doesn't seem necessary anymore.

@markelog
Copy link
Member

I would like to merge it, waiting couple hours for @gibson042 response

@pgilad
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgilad commented Jun 24, 2015

Hey @markelog thanks for the review. I added some extra blank spaces where needed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would love to change this to simple if...else, but i guess this story for another day

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

@markelog
Copy link
Member

Closed via f2bcf87

@markelog markelog closed this Jun 25, 2015
@markelog
Copy link
Member

It seems we're passed on first try, thank you!

@pgilad
Copy link
Contributor Author

pgilad commented Jun 25, 2015

👏

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 19, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants