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: ensure no data loss occurs when using reactive Set methods #11385

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 29, 2024

Conversation

trueadm
Copy link
Contributor

@trueadm trueadm commented Apr 29, 2024

Svelte 5 rewrite

Please note that the Svelte codebase is currently being rewritten for Svelte 5. Changes should target Svelte 5, which lives on the default branch (main).

If your PR concerns Svelte 4 (including updates to svelte.dev.docs), please ensure the base branch is svelte-4 and not main.

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

  • It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
  • Prefix your PR title with feat:, fix:, chore:, or docs:.
  • This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
  • Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests and linting

  • Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint

Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Apr 29, 2024

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 58efac6

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
svelte Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@trueadm trueadm marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2024 21:47
@trueadm trueadm merged commit e017764 into main Apr 29, 2024
8 checks passed
@trueadm trueadm deleted the fix-reactive-set branch April 29, 2024 21:51
@Azarattum
Copy link
Contributor

Azarattum commented Apr 30, 2024

@trueadm can you take a look at #11287 ? It implements lazy signal initialization which allows us to store the original data in the underlying set. I think it is a better solution than creating a new Set each time we call a method. It also has a small benefit of making reactivity more fine-grained.

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.

None yet

2 participants