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 #1868 v-slots now work inside a div #1877

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rikbrowning
Copy link

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check at least one)

  • [ X] Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Code style update
  • Refactor
  • Build-related changes
  • Other, please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one)

  • Yes
  • [X ] 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:

  • [ X] 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:

ctx.$options.parent._vnode.data.scopedSlots
) {
const slotKeys: Array<string> = ctx.$options.parent._vnode.data.scopedSlots
if (ctx && ctx.$vnode && ctx.$vnode.data && ctx.$vnode.data.scopedSlots) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey, sorry for the delay on this... so basically ctx.$options.parent._vnode.data.scopedSlots references the same thing as ctx.$vnode.data.scopedSlots? Do you see any potential risk/regression here?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Really sorry I am only getting to this now. They main difference is we are not going to the parent for reference of the current vnode. I am unsure if there was a specific reason we were doing this?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no idea, this part of the code base is incredibly complex.

I wonder if we can do this in a way that changes less code to reduce risk. A lot of code bases depend on shallowMount and stubs working how they currently do (which is what this code is relate dto) and I don't want to accidental break anything.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I guess this code change is address the fact that parent might actually be a normal DOM node and therefore not have a _vnode property. This is the case with the original bug report. Instead we are using the $vnode on the context to get access to the scopedSlots rather than relying on a parent

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