Add date to implicit forks. Remove destructive dom plundering. #54
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
paul90
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 16, 2014
Add date to implicit forks. Remove destructive dom plundering.
|
Published as wiki-client@0.2.11 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This request adds a date to implicit forks written to browser local storage.
This handles one case mentioned in WardCunningham/Smallest-Federated-Wiki#431.
This request also removes a line of unwanted dom plundering for story items which has been made unnecessary by the reference to the
lineupa few lines above. In fact this dom plundering only worked in the case where the dom annotations were current with edits and this was only true when the page was always edited in local storage. This stopped being true when we switch to local storage on ajax error. This corrects the "unreliability" casually mentioned in #50.