fix(runtime): non-shadow slot forwarding fixes - #6816
Merged
Conversation
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
What is the current behavior?
GitHub Issue Number: #6770
What is the new behavior?
Fixes #6770
Tackling this issue raised lots of rough edges around non-shadow
<slot>forwarding - all of which lead to unexpected / non-native behaviour.slot forwarding logic revolved around corresponding
nameattributes.. i.e.cmp-a's slot would try be forwarded to cmp-b's slot (and dynamically fail as per the linked issue).
This is incorrect - cmp-a's slot must also have a corresponding
slotto forward.. otherwise it should go to the default slot, or be hidden if there is no default slot.This PR roles in a number of small fixes to better align slot forwarding to the spec with 3 scenarios tested for:
This was tested for and fixed for initial hydration and dynamic insertion and removal
Tested against the linked repro
Documentation
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Strictly not, but if users were relying on the broken behaviour then it could be perceived as breaking ... so I'm going to roll into v5
Testing
Other information