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 (a11y): add parent node check when removing existing aria describe #19951
Conversation
Thanks for your pull request. It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project (if not, look below for help). Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA). 📝 Please visit https://cla.developers.google.com/ to sign. Once you've signed (or fixed any issues), please reply here with What to do if you already signed the CLAIndividual signers
Corporate signers
ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
@googlebot I signed it! |
CLAs look good, thanks! ℹ️ Googlers: Go here for more info. |
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.
Commit message fixup: should be changed to something like fix(a11y): add parent node check when removing existing aria describer container
.
browser stack failures are there, but they seem unrelated. Is this still merge-able with browser stack failure? |
Looks like a flake. I've restarted it. |
It's still happening I think. Not sure how to debug that particular area. |
@jelbourn @devversion bump |
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. It's super surprising to me that the parent node is undefined (given we retrieved it from the document
), but as noted in the issue, it shouldn't hurt having this check.
if (preExistingContainer && preExistingContainer.parentNode) { | ||
preExistingContainer.parentNode.removeChild(preExistingContainer); |
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.
Could this just be
preExistingContainer?.parentNode?.removeChild(preExistingContainer);
I think its a stylistic preference. Sure feel free to make any updates :)
…On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jeremy Elbourn ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In src/cdk/a11y/aria-describer/aria-describer.ts
<#19951 (comment)>:
> + if (preExistingContainer && preExistingContainer.parentNode) {
+ preExistingContainer.parentNode.removeChild(preExistingContainer);
Could this just be
preExistingContainer?.parentNode?.removeChild(preExistingContainer);
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19951 (review)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQICDMDFVPYHM2RRFU2GCELR3SAH7ANCNFSM4OX43RQA>
.
|
@jelbourn bump |
This PR has "merge ready", which means it's in the queue to be merged (it's not always fast because there are extra hoops to have to do with every PR to make sure they don't break anything inside Google) |
Thank you. This is my first time creating a PR so I was wondering if I had
to ping to make sure it is in the queue.
Thanks for the heads up :)
…On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:22 PM Jeremy Elbourn ***@***.***> wrote:
This PR has "merge ready", which means it's in the queue to be merged
(it's not always fast because there are extra hoops to have to do with
every PR to make sure they don't break anything inside Google)
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#19951 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQICDMFDZJTW747WGFB5VMDR4YILVANCNFSM4OX43RQA>
.
|
@jelbourn This PR is passing presubmits but I couldn't merge it for the sync because it conflicts with 10.1.x |
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. |
#19949