-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.4k
feat(chips): trigger ng-change on chip addition/removal #11237
Conversation
So there's good news and bad news. 👍 The good news is that everyone that needs to sign a CLA (the pull request submitter and all commit authors) have done so. Everything is all good there. 😕 The bad news is that it appears that one or more commits were authored or co-authored by someone other than the pull request submitter. We need to confirm that all authors are ok with their commits being contributed to this project. Please have them confirm that here in the pull request. Note to project maintainer: This is a terminal state, meaning the |
@Free-Easy can you please verify that you confirm that these commits can be added back to the repo? |
I confirm. |
Using 1.1.9 which seem like it trigger |
@Splaktar When would the fix released? |
@Thaina it was scheduled for last week, but we ran into some issues with the merging and sync. We're hopefully working through the last one now and plan to release 1.1.10 this coming week. |
* Add test of `ng-change` for `md-chips` * Add docs regarding `ng-change` for `md-chips` and `md-contact-chips` * Add demo for ng-change on `md-chips` * Add demo for ng-change on `md-contact-chips` Closes angular#11161 Closes angular#3857
PR Checklist
Please check that your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
AngularJS'
ng-change
directive is not supported with chips or contact chips.Issue Number:
Closes #11161
Closes #3857
What is the new behavior?
AngularJS'
ng-change
directive is now supported with chips and contact chips.Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information
ng-change
formd-chips
ng-change
formd-chips
andmd-contact-chips
md-chips
md-contact-chips
This PR brings back the functionality from @Free-Easy in PR #11166 which was reverted in #11219 due to #11218. However, #11218 appears to be caused by application-specific code and not a regression caused by this feature.
As mentioned in #11218 (comment), the team wants to test and try to reproduce the issue again so that they can investigate their application code. To do this, they need this change back in
master
.