-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
test(es/minifier): Add a test for ??
operator
#6282
Conversation
let { onTryoutClick: t , parameters: r , allowTryItOut: a , tryItOutEnabled: n , specPath: l , fn: s , getComponent: o , getConfigs: i , specSelectors: u , specActions: d , pathMethod: g , oas3Actions: v , oas3Selectors: E , operation: b } = this.props; | ||
const S = o("parameterRow"), _ = o("TryItOutButton"), w = o("contentType"), C = o("Callbacks", !0), x = o("RequestBody", !0), A = n && a, I = u.isOAS3(), R = b.get("requestBody"), N = (0, p.default)(e = (0, ft.default)((0, p.default)(r).call(r, (e, t)=>{ | ||
const r = t.get("in"); | ||
return e[r] ?? (e[r] = []), e[r].push(t), e; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This was previously e[r], e[r] = []
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
swc-bump:
- swc_ecma_minifier
Is it possible to add a reduced test case? |
tryItOutEnabled: !1, | ||
allowTryItOut: !0, | ||
onChangeKey: [], | ||
specPath: [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jridgewell Do you think it's better to remove this file?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. If this file changes in the future, there's very little chance I'll spot the previously buggy code again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point, I'll do it for other patches too
Has this already been fixed by #6272? |
@Austaras No, as we have removing logic in more places |
No, there's alreay a |
The |
Oh, if then it's possible that I was using a old base branch. |
You are right, this was fixed already and I was using an old base |
??
??
operator
Description:
I'm still investigating.
Related issue:
next-swagger-doc
vercel/next.js#41992.Investigation
works, while
does not
I found the cause.
is compiled as
so we should preserve
??