Open
Conversation
- Make type inference work a lot better - Simplify logic - Add a test for Feature<null> behavior, which is surprising - Remove an unused parameter
Member
|
Would lean toward saving this for a major release. No point risking it if there is no pressure. Out of curiosity what does the documentation for the return type end up looking like? |
Collaborator
Author
I tried to generate the docs again locally and ... have no idea how to do it. If its just parsing the README.md files, it will just say |
Member
|
All good for it to stay as string. Will flesh out turf-www with a better readme though. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Ran into some issues when typing @turf/line-split that warranted a small cleanup PR.
I'm kind of unsure how much of a breaking change this is. Removing a parameter that was never used breaks the signature, but also I'm not sure how anyone would've been passing in anything for this parameter that appears to have been unused since we started shipping types.
We're also narrowing the return type from
stringto a specific string (or string union, depending on input). This could cause a new break with something like the (very contrived) snippet below:Overall I think I'd push for merging this in 7.x, but happy for pushback there if others feel strongly against.