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
Make Fody ToPropertyEx work against IReactiveObject #2248
Comments
|
Hey @MartinZikmund 👋, Thank you for opening an issue. We will get back to you as soon as we can. Also, check out our Open Collective and consider contributing financially. https://opencollective.com/reactiveui
|
|
If we agree on a way to resolve this, I would love to contribute the change |
|
@glennawatson shall we consider this request at the same time as changing the ToPropertyEx name? |
|
Yeah. I have this happening in my testing version. |
|
Any update on this capability? |
|
Next major release is the plan for this one. There is a major rewrite for the Fody coming up that will support these features. |
|
The fody is going into maintenance-only mode at the moment while we work on a new project which will replace the functionality in general. Keeping this open to track for the new project. |
|
By maintenance-only mode, I presume that's in reference to everyone-should-be-a-fody-patron. Where is the new project and how can we contribute? |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I would like to use
ToPropertyExagainst an instance ofIReactiveObject, but it unfortunately requires aReactiveObjectDescribe the solution you'd like
Change the generic constraint on
ToPropertyExtoclass, IReactiveObjectto matchToPropertymethod.Describe alternatives you've considered
Implementing the method manually, but that is less convenient that having this out of the box.
Describe suggestions on how to achieve the feature
Change the generic constraint on
ToPropertyExtoclass, IReactiveObjectto matchToPropertymethod. Unfortunately this causes failure of API approval test. The change makes the constraint more permissive, but it is still a breaking change.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: