Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(v-on): add more precise names for pointer modifiers #7069

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

st-sloth
Copy link
Contributor

@st-sloth st-sloth commented Nov 16, 2017

re #6877

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Code style update
  • Refactor
  • Build-related changes
  • Other, please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one)

  • Yes
  • No

If yes, please describe the impact and migration path for existing applications:

The PR fulfills these requirements:

If adding a new feature, the PR's description includes:

  • A convincing reason for adding this feature (to avoid wasting your time, it's best to open a suggestion issue first and wait for approval before working on it)

Other information:

Having a warning "uncaught" with toHaveBeenWarned fails otherwise valid tests. Adding assertions about warnings seems excessive in those tests. What is the proper way to do it?

Also questions posed in #6877 (comment) are relevant. Currently names are primary, secondary, auxiliary for left, right, middle correspondingly.

@yyx990803
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the PR!

I think it makes sense to assert that the warning has indeed been warned whenever it should be. That's the point of the warn check.

Naming looks good.

Final note: we probably won't merge/ship this until 2.6 since we want to avoid introducing deprecations in patch releases.

@st-sloth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you!

I'll add the warn checks in a bit.

2.6 is totally fine. But if the new API is welcome in a patch release while deprecation warnings are not, and if it would be beneficial, I can move deprecation warnings into another PR that would wait for the minor version bump and keep new names with working old ones here for the patch.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants