Conversation
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3189 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 78.36% 78.34% -0.03%
==========================================
Files 674 674
Lines 55386 55376 -10
Branches 728 728
==========================================
- Hits 43402 43383 -19
- Misses 11906 11915 +9
Partials 78 78
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
| this.derivedLast = config.derivedLast || false | ||
| this.menus[1].items[1].checked = this.derivedLast | ||
| this.valueType = config.valueType || 'FORMATTED' | ||
| this.menus[1].radioGroup = valueTypeToRadioGroup[this.valueType] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These were redundant calls
| }) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| if (target && packet) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This code change is to simplify the previous logic / make it more readable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm trying to logic my way through if (!target || !packet) (line 507), if (target && packet)/else (lines 518/526)... I guess if target or packet is not defined from the route parameters and config is missing target or packet, then 507 and 526 will both be executed. If target or packet is not defined from the route parameters but config has both defined, line 511 will be true and none of the rest of this function will execute. Does this sound right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That sounds right, I'm personally not a fan of watch and there's a decent amount of complicated logic/race conditions here. This PR is planned to fix the behavior, and then sometime soon I will convert this all to Composition API, make smaller components, and reduce to amount of friction on the created hook
| } | ||
| this.changeUpdater(true) | ||
| } | ||
| this.changeUpdater(true) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Putting some code inside the else to prevent unnecessary secondary calls
EmilyRagan
left a comment
EmilyRagan
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems to work as expected, agreed that this logic is way overcomplicated and should be simplified in the future
2 participants
closes #3185