Mutable drops should fallback to their own methods when a mutation isn't present #6350
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
parkr
approved these changes
Sep 21, 2017
|
@benbalter Should this be backported and released as v3.5.3? |
|
@jekyllbot: merge +bug |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A follow up to #6338 and discovered via jekyll/github-metadata#112, the current logic for
Jekyll::Drops::Drop#key?for mutable drops is to look for a mutated key, but then not to look for a native method or fallback data. Instead, Drops should look for a key in the mutated data, in native methods, AND in fallback data.This PR updates the logic of
Drop#key?and includes tests to ensure the method does what we expect it to going forward.