fix(form-field): add missing material common module #19093
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
devversion
added
the
target: patch
googlebot
added
the
cla: yes
We seem to miss the `MatCommonModule` in the form-field. This came up when doing size comparison between the MDC-based form-field.
devversion
force-pushed
the
refactor/experimental-remove-common-module-form-field
branch
from
d70155c to
7c93f50
Compare
jelbourn
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 8, 2020
We seem to miss the `MatCommonModule` in the form-field. This came up when doing size comparison between the MDC-based form-field.
|
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We seem to miss the
MatCommonModulein the form-field. This came upwhen doing size comparison between the MDC-based form-field.
It's unclear to me if there is any reason why we didn't add it to the form-field
in the past. Maybe it was just an oversight.