You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The ables resizable, clippable, scalable, & rotatable, each provide the typing: able?: boolean | AbleOptionsType within their AbleOptionsType. As it is a recursive definition, it includes the able: boolean again. I see why this was added (to differentiate same options between different ables, such as keepRatio. But able: AbleOptionsType always gets treated as able: true even when able: { able: false } is set. I believe if it is to be recursive, it should treat the the first depth able option as a boolean.
An alternative could be to do able: boolean and ableOptions: AbleIOptionsType so you dont have to deal with the option of recursion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Environments
Description
The ables
resizable
,clippable
,scalable
, &rotatable
, each provide the typing:able?: boolean | AbleOptionsType
within theirAbleOptionsType
. As it is a recursive definition, it includes theable: boolean
again. I see why this was added (to differentiate same options between different ables, such askeepRatio
. Butable: AbleOptionsType
always gets treated asable: true
even whenable: { able: false }
is set. I believe if it is to be recursive, it should treat the the first depthable
option as a boolean.An alternative could be to do
able: boolean
andableOptions: AbleIOptionsType
so you dont have to deal with the option of recursion.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: