Conversation
@akxcv any thoughts here? Happy to investigate the failing tests if this makes sense. |
@phillbaker Is this pull-request dead? |
Was waiting on a review/merge. But seems like it would still be useful and
relevant.
…On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 12:25 AM Tim Badolato ***@***.***> wrote:
@phillbaker <https://github.com/phillbaker> Is this pull-request dead?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#94?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAAXCKOTTIF5UPK6LRAD73DQ6KHFPA5CNFSM4IVGM2G2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEJJQ4QA#issuecomment-575868480>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAXCKNY56IF6OOPGSS7FELQ6KHFPANCNFSM4IVGM2GQ>
.
|
Hey, I thought I commented on this, but apparently not. I thought that making config a JS class would be more readable/maintainable, but an object will do for now. Could you please describe in a few words how to actually use this feature in code? Could you provide a minimal sample? |
Thanks @akxcv for taking another look.
The key problem this is solving is that instance options set at the top level
Sure - very similar to the example, in #83 (comment):
|
Yeah, this will work for now. Could you please describe this functionality in the README? Then we can merge this. |
ea55634
to
88ca39a
Compare
Done! |
Redo of #90. ea55634 fixes the build bug in #90 (comment) - sorry about that!
Also closes #83