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

fix(parser#9038): Fix for slot "name" property using interpolation as well… #9143

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

zleight1
Copy link

@zleight1 zleight1 commented Dec 4, 2018

… as the "slot" property. (#9038)

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:

@posva
Copy link
Member

posva commented Dec 5, 2018

Did you see there is already #9050 ?

@zleight1
Copy link
Author

zleight1 commented Dec 5, 2018

Yes, I missed that originally but submitted the PR because the other one misses a spot a little bit further down (and admittedly because I didn’t see any other easy bugs to get familiar with the Vue source code :D).

The added test that checks for interpolation on slot=“” checks for the scenario missed in the other PR.

`and can possibly expand into multiple elements. ` +
`Use the key on a wrapping element instead.`
)
let slotName
Copy link

@satishrdd satishrdd Jan 18, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why use let here if we are not editing slotName more than once here,why not use const ?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I was trying to be consistent with the other code but you're right.

Either way there was another PR for this bug so I haven't followed up on this..

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants