-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 164
DependsOn array values for matching multiple different values #56
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
Open
drsdre
wants to merge
8
commits into
epartment:master
Choose a base branch
from
drsdre:patch-1
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
fa1b5d4
dependsOn array of values
drsdre 8f2ca1c
Added 'or' matching of value
drsdre e5af15a
Compare array of values instead of value
drsdre 468da95
Recompiled dist JS
drsdre a17ae83
Inversed logic
drsdre 3b6554d
Recompiled dist js
drsdre 121117b
Reverse comparison logic
drsdre a6ab712
And recompile dist
drsdre 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 hidden or 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
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
Oops, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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
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.
a nice optimization here might be to return as soon as we find a value satisfied. There is no point to check other conditions if one matches. Also you could instead use the js
includes
method to make this even cleaner instead of a local variable (valuesSatisfied
) and the for loopThere 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.
@ragingdave that’s basically the only problem I have with this package. When chaining multiple
dependsOn
conditions, it will always resolve in anor
statement, when dependencies get resolved as soon as one statement resolves to be true.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.
While I agree with you, and might have even said so in an issue about this same topic, that level of improvement for this package seems a very far ways off. I mean this with no disrepect, but clearly you don't have the time for that big of an upgrade, and quite frankly neither do I. Perhaps this particular PR, would be valuable to further improve the 1.x line, with perhaps the query builder like syntax/chaining being something for a v2 or beyond.