Slightly changed invokeConfigSetters code
#79
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
I hope that makes its code a little easier to read. Also fixes a minor issue I encountered when using `group()`/`env()`: The webpack config object that was passed to blocks as 2nd parameter contained duplicate prop values when blocks where used in a `group()`/`env()`. Did not cause any bugs yet, though AFAIK.
andywer
force-pushed
the
feature/improve-core-config-merging-code
branch
from
10e1bb0
to
3d85480
Compare
|
Yes a lot easier to understand what's going on 👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I hope that makes the
invokeConfigSetterscode and its usage a little easier to understand.Also fixes a minor issue I encountered when using
group()/env():The webpack config object that was passed to blocks as 2nd parameter contained duplicate prop values when blocks where used in a
group()/env(). Did not cause any bugs yet, though AFAIK.@eXon Did I succeed to improve the code's readability or didn't I? 😅