Open ijlee2 opened 4 years ago
I think we could even go a step further and not name it model
to avoid confusion, but at the very least, I think we should do as @ijlee2 suggests.
Sounds good. I can make a PR this weekend to add the warning and update the example code.
I think renaming model
to a more descriptive name would be good. However, since this will cause a breaking change, it may be out of the extent of help that I can offer.
@ijlee2 yeah, I think no need to introduce a breaking change right now, but we do need to guard people against making this mistake.
Ya, we can expose a new field though. So you could author this.headData.someProperty
, instead of this.model
. Using model
here really just isn't very useful.
I opened the PR at https://github.com/ronco/ember-cli-head/pull/81, just for updating the readme. I suggest that we make a new issue to address the ambiguity in model
.
Hello. A couple of weeks ago, my team introduced a bug when we Octanified our templates by changing all instances of
this.model
to@model
. We didn't realize until today that we should have left alonethis.model
inapp/templates/head.hbs
, sincemodel
refers to thehead-data
service.I was wondering if you could (1) add a warning to the readme file under https://github.com/ronco/ember-cli-head#service, and (2) update the example code to Octane,
so that other developers and teams may avoid our mistake when using Octane? I can also create a PR if you think making these changes would be a good idea.