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

STENCIL-3845 Unless helper #126

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 15, 2017

Conversation

mcampa
Copy link
Contributor

@mcampa mcampa commented Sep 15, 2017

Customers are trying to use "unless" with operators, the same way "if" works, but we have not implemented this helper.

@bigcommerce/stencil-team

}
} else { // non-block helper
return result;
if (!options.fn || !options.inverse) {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is changing the behavior for if when fn is not passed. Instead of returning the value, we return true. Is that what we want?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mcampa mcampa Sep 15, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No is not, there are tests in place for these cases. This code was added in the wrong way a few moths ago a12cdbd

I had to change it because it was breaking when if is called from unless helper because the unless helper relies in fn() and inverse()

Copy link
Contributor Author

@mcampa mcampa Sep 15, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The return values is always a boolean when called from a non-block

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is it possible to pass fn but not inverse? Should this be

options.fn = typeof options.fn === 'function' ? options.fn : () => true;
options.inverse = typeof options.inverse === 'function' ? options.inverse : () => false;

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

both need to exist. If one of them is missing, is probably a bug

@mcampa mcampa merged commit f4280b0 into bigcommerce:master Sep 15, 2017
@mcampa mcampa deleted the STENCIL-3845-unless-helper branch September 15, 2017 19:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants