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
fix(ivy): multi provider override support in TestBed #29919
fix(ivy): multi provider override support in TestBed #29919
Conversation
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.
LGTM
Overriding multi provider values (providers with `multi: true` flag) via TestBed require additional handling: all existing multi-provider values for the same token should be removed from the override list, so that they are not included into the final value of a given provider. This commit adds this logic to make sure we handle multi providers correctly.
d6b7f95
to
d5aeaa7
Compare
merge-assistance: integration test for size broken on master |
Overriding multi provider values (providers with `multi: true` flag) via TestBed require additional handling: all existing multi-provider values for the same token should be removed from the override list, so that they are not included into the final value of a given provider. This commit adds this logic to make sure we handle multi providers correctly. PR Close angular#29919
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. |
Overriding multi provider values (providers with
multi: true
flag) via TestBed require additional handling: all existing multi-provider values for the same token should be removed from the override list, so that they are not included into the final value of a given provider. This commit adds this logic to make sure we handle multi providers correctly.This PR resolves FW-1251.
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?