-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 94
fix: restore more Node and ProcessingInstruction types #726
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d23c007
fix: restore Node and ProcessingInstruction prop types
karfau b92962c
chore: resolve CodeQL warnings
karfau 3e161a8
docs(types): update comments after review
karfau 23d0273
fix: ProcessingInstruction extends CharacterData
karfau 730b14d
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into missing-node-pi-types
karfau 0db88a2
fix: unify checks in hasInsertableNodeType
karfau 9173375
docs: assert actual values for ProcessingInstruction
karfau 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
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.
This doesn't really make sense since no matter what property you try to access it's always gonna be
undefinedsincefakeNodeis just an empty object. You should probably just use anElementor something else that extendsNode.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.
As I mentioned in the comment above this section, yes, there is no actual instance of type
Node, but these assertions should make sure that those properties are available on the typeNode, not only on some sub type/class.When using
assert, the CodeQL checks will complain that the values are unused.And yes, I'm asserting that the value is undefined, which only makes sense in the context of this assertion.
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.
Ahh I think I get it now... so basically if you would try to do this:
assert(fakeNode.doesntExist, undefined)JS would be fine with it but since the TS compiler checks this the check would fail correctly.