fix(MessageEmbed): set footer to undefined #7358
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
We do not accept PRs to stable anymore, it causes main to need a rebase and with that, all PRs with it. |
This bug isn't present is builder, that's why it's not present in main branch too. So where should I change it? I think this change is needed because after v14 release some people will still use v13. |
|
After #7431 ig this can be added in v13 |
iCrawl
approved these changes
Feb 13, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please describe the changes this PR makes and why it should be merged:
If you set
embed.setFooter(null)it set's footer to{}. When checkingMessageEmbed.length, it checksthis.footer?.text.length. In this case, footer is defined but footer.text isn't, so it'll throw an errorcan't read property of undefined (reading length).In builder, it's correct, that's why after discussing in
library-discussionI'm sending the pr in stable branch.Status and versioning classification: