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

Build: Fix components exports after refactor #957

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 31, 2017

Conversation

youknowriad
Copy link
Contributor

Refactoring the components module build, broke some components. (Try opening the sidebar)
This should fix it

See #929 (comment)

@youknowriad youknowriad added the [Type] Bug An existing feature does not function as intended label May 31, 2017
@youknowriad youknowriad self-assigned this May 31, 2017
@jasmussen
Copy link
Contributor

Yep. Sidebar is opening fine, things seem to be working! Thanks for fixing this so quick. No JS errors. 👍

@youknowriad youknowriad merged commit 48c092a into master May 31, 2017
@youknowriad youknowriad deleted the fix/components-breakage branch May 31, 2017 11:19
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@ export { default as Dashicon } from './dashicon';
export { default as FormToggle } from './form-toggle';
export { default as IconButton } from './icon-button';
export { default as Panel } from './panel';
export { default as PanelHeader } from './panel/header';
export { default as PanelBody } from './panel/body';
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we want to treat nested components the same as top-level? Wondering if either Panel.Body or import PanelBody from 'components/panel/header'; are better alternatives.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The problem with import PanelBody from 'components/panel/header' is that it will cause the code to be duplicated across builds. This may be solvable via some trick I don't know about, see #941.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for context @nylen . I'm finding I'm reading the sequence of these pull requests very much out of order 😛

@nylen
Copy link
Member

nylen commented May 31, 2017

Thanks for fixing this, and sorry for the breakage 😬

@aduth
Copy link
Member

aduth commented May 31, 2017

Is there still work to be done for #944 ?

@nylen
Copy link
Member

nylen commented May 31, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[Type] Bug An existing feature does not function as intended
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants