-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 112
Add update method for model updates #34
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6cf41ff
Add update method for model updates
dfcook a9fe708
Return promise rather than await
dfcook cf49360
Remove updateState - v-model now supported through update
dfcook 206208c
Merge branch 'master' into issues/22-add-update-method
dfcook 11d7bc1
1.0.3
dfcook e7ae8b7
Merge branch 'issues/22-add-update-method' of github.com:testing-libr…
dfcook File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
quick question! Should this line
return
, instead ofawait
? If not, why does it need to be different?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.
I missed that, updated now.
WRT change and input, I hadn't considered that update may replace them all. I would rather expose them and allow the user the choice of which to use than deprecate them. What do you think?
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 actually leads me to another question...
I feel that just writing
.input
or.change
, like the native events, makes a lot of sense. And it would be quite weird iffireEvent.input
only worked in certain cases (when v-model is not used).So... what if
input
andchange
would handle v-model properly, instead of creating a new event? Would it be hard?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.
We could mask input or change, however we're still moving away from what is the idiomatic usage and taking away options from the end user (to use input or change as they are natively).
I'm not sure if there is an ideal solution here tbh, although I think update as it is here is probably the most flexible solution.
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.
You are right. Also adding a method is a non breaking change, while modifying the implementation of
.input
and.change
might be. Let's add the update method and see how it goes!