-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47.2k
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
Simplify CSS shorthand property warning #14183
Conversation
I figured out a simpler way to do facebook#14181. It does allocate some but I think that's OK. Time complexity might even be better since we avoid the nested loops the old one had.
Are we ok releasing the first one in a patch release? I think we should probably add this warning behind a feature flag since it is likely to be very noisy. |
Details of bundled changes.Comparing: 961eb65...c92e400 react-dom
Generated by 🚫 dangerJS |
I don't think this will be very noisy. I think it basically always indicates a real bug. |
In that case we should first turn it on internally and verify that assumption. |
Happy to. If we want to cut a patch first we can disable it temporarily I guess. |
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.
@acdlite One more for your revert list.
I figured out a simpler way to do facebook#14181. It does allocate some but I think that's OK. Time complexity might even be better since we avoid the nested loops the old one had.
I figured out a simpler way to do facebook#14181. It does allocate some but I think that's OK. Time complexity might even be better since we avoid the nested loops the old one had.
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.
Looks GTG
@astr0sl0th This PR has been merged a year ago. Please don’t leave reviews on old PRs, you’re spamming everyone’s notifications. |
I figured out a simpler way to do #14181. It does allocate some but I think that's OK. Time complexity might even be better since we avoid the nested loops the old one had.