Skip to content
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

chore(docs): Clarify failOn setting #3481

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 8, 2022
Merged

chore(docs): Clarify failOn setting #3481

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 8, 2022

Conversation

LekoArts
Copy link
Contributor

@LekoArts LekoArts commented Dec 7, 2022

Description

Clarification to the failOn setting coming from the discussion in #3480. Goal of this PR is to set correct expectations of when failOn is actually applied internally and which images are always expected to fail regardless of the setting of this

Related Issues

Fixes #3480

docs/api-constructor.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lovell
Copy link
Owner

lovell commented Dec 7, 2022

Thank you very much for the PR, how about something like:

when to abort processing of invalid pixel data, one of (in order of sensitivity): 'none' (least), 'truncated', 'error' or 'warning' (most), higher levels imply lower levels, invalid metadata will always abort

Please can you update the JSDocs then use npm run docs-build to automagically update the markdown.

* @param {string} [options.failOn='warning'] - level of sensitivity to invalid images, one of (in order of sensitivity): 'none' (least), 'truncated', 'error' or 'warning' (most), highers level imply lower levels.

@LekoArts
Copy link
Contributor Author

LekoArts commented Dec 8, 2022

Done 👍

@lovell lovell merged commit 89e204d into lovell:main Dec 8, 2022
@lovell
Copy link
Owner

lovell commented Dec 8, 2022

Brilliant, thank you.

@LekoArts LekoArts deleted the patch-1 branch December 8, 2022 16:22
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Expected behavior of failOn
2 participants