-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
feature/issue 177 Replaced deprecated method getInnerHTML with getHTML #171
Merged
thescientist13
merged 2 commits into
ProjectEvergreen:master
from
DannyMoerkerke:master
Dec 20, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So did some initial testing in Greenwood and observed one small caveat here, with this line in particular
In that technically you can
attachShadow
and return the value, for exampleWould work, at least as demonstrated by MDN.
And so with this change we would assume users to always have to do either one of the following it seems, in being explicit about having
this.shadowRoot
present?I think it's not that big of a deal, and if so I can make sure we cover this as part of #181
@briangrider not sure if your PR would account for this, or should we just assume
this.shadowRoot
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hm, I think I'm not understanding the issue here. I believe everything you mentioned (including this.root = this.attachShadow({ mode: 'open' });) should work as expected both before the DOM shim refactor and after, right? If this.attachShadow is called, this.shadowRoot will always exist and both DOM shims return this.shadowRoot when attaching shadow. But I think it's possible I'm not understanding the problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry yes, should have provided a bit more of the context but the test case that looked like it was failing was for this custom element definition
https://github.com/ProjectEvergreen/greenwood/blob/master/packages/cli/test/cases/build.config.prerender/src/components/header.js
In that I thought it was not emitting the
<template>
tag in the SSR outputBut testing again after double checking my patching of this changeset and it does look the
<template>
tag is thereand so the test case just needs to be updated to account for the (new)
<template>
which now appears and is the (new) expected behavior we would be seeing, yes? (the selector just needs to account for addition child element of the<template>
So apologies, may have been a false alarm. 🙃
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
According to the specs,
attachShadow
already returnsthis.shadowRoot
: https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#ref-for-dom-element-attachshadow①