-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
mrc-6023 POC static build #236
Open
M-Kusumgar
wants to merge
17
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
mrc-6023
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
17 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6a4a090
poc done
M-Kusumgar 182af9a
Merge branch 'mrc-6018' of github.com:mrc-ide/wodin into mrc-6023
M-Kusumgar 16e61ec
regen package lock
M-Kusumgar 4a62a0b
extract STATIC_BUILD from app vue files
M-Kusumgar 373401d
better types
M-Kusumgar c6048f6
as any in test
M-Kusumgar b0b59dc
fix test
M-Kusumgar c84f147
Merge branch 'main' of github.com:mrc-ide/wodin into mrc-6023
M-Kusumgar 84aeb2a
address comments
M-Kusumgar e41acbf
create package script for action
M-Kusumgar e97c76a
add copy static files script
M-Kusumgar e901ead
update path to wodin js and css
M-Kusumgar 50d66a1
refactor of POC done!
M-Kusumgar 4c7926d
fix tests
M-Kusumgar ef39bce
clean up diff
M-Kusumgar 3ee3588
clean up further
M-Kusumgar 4534546
ready
M-Kusumgar File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
this line basically gets the type of the first argument of setup function (which is props), so we can be sure that the selected tab exists for every app type
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.
I can see why you've done this but it's quite confusing to read! I don't really love invoking the first parameter of setup as a way of getting out of declaring actual props types - it does save you that maintenance overhead but with something of a loss of clarity! Could we at least declare this type above and put a comment on it?
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.
sure yh, sadly i couldnt actually find a way to extract the prop types any other way from defineComponent type which sucks, feel like they couldve made that easier
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.
Yeah, agreed. We've usually just defined the types ourselves in the past. It's boring boilerplate, but it's easy to comprehend...