Skip to content
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

fix: outputReferenceFallbacks for css/variables formatter #1112

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tkgroot
Copy link

@tkgroot tkgroot commented Mar 4, 2024

Issue #, if available:

If options were provided with outputReferences and outputReferenceFallbacks set to true did not add the fallbacks when running with the css/variables formatter.

Description of changes:

  • outputReferenceFallbacks options are passed through to up until the createPropertyFormatter function, which was previously not the case
  • add test to verify outputReferenceFallbacks are set
  • update test snapshot

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

- outputReferenceFallbacks options are passed through to the
createPropertyFormatter function, which was previously not the case
- add test to verify outputReferenceFallbacks are set
- update test snapshot

Signed-off-by: Tobias Kuppens Groot <tkuppensgroo@uos.de>
@tkgroot
Copy link
Author

tkgroot commented Mar 4, 2024

created a PR for the new v4 version as well. it can be found here #1113

@jorenbroekema
Copy link
Collaborator

Since v3 is essentially in maintenance mode now that v4 is coming soon, I'd prefer to only merge high prio bugfixes/security vulnerabilities, is it okay to only do this fix to the v4 branch?

@tkgroot
Copy link
Author

tkgroot commented Mar 13, 2024

TL;DR: I would appreciate if this bugfix would make it into the current version.

tbh, I find that a bit weird to put v3 in maintenance mode before v4 is actually released. Do not understand the reasoning behind. I will not upgrade my current setup to a running beta because v4 is coming soon (especially because I dislike the term "coming soon").
My current setup does require that bugfix and I'm, like I said, not keen to adapt a beta version.

@jorenbroekema
Copy link
Collaborator

jorenbroekema commented Mar 14, 2024

Understandable, the main reason is that I'm carrying this solo at the moment and I've got limited time. Since v4 is a complete refactor (ESM, browser-compatible, first-class type safety, and the list goes on), it's getting pretty tough to backport every non-crucial thing to v3. I also don't have CI/CD set up for v3 and thus require @dbanksdesign to manually publish v3, while the v4 prereleases I can publish through github actions myself.

I get your point though about being forced into an unstable API beta version. since this PR is small I'll try to get it released for v3

@jorenbroekema jorenbroekema enabled auto-merge (squash) March 14, 2024 09:07
@tkgroot
Copy link
Author

tkgroot commented Mar 18, 2024

Oh my, I didn't know that this was such a hassle. appreciate the effort you put in to get this released. 💯

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants