Closed mbomfim33 closed 3 years ago
Hey, @joeldenning, sure. I'll start the tests and trying it out now, just wanted to be sure that this was what we are looking for. Is there any other specific scenarios I should be worried about with this new condition? Or that's all good?
We should verify that the following code would result in the following html:
singleSpaVue({
el: '#vue-app',
replaceMode: true,
// rest of options
})
<template>
<div id="vue-app">
<button>Hi</button>
</div>
</template>
<html>
<body>
<div id="vue-app">
<button>Hi</button>
</div>
</body>
</html>
@joeldenning, done. Should have TDD'ed here, but oh well.
I documented this in https://github.com/single-spa/single-spa.js.org/pull/443 and released it in https://github.com/single-spa/single-spa-vue/releases/tag/v2.3.0
This PR is related to #64 discussion, and it is a pretty naive implementation of what I understand would suffice to allow users to mount their applications onto the specified DOM element, and avoid the concatenation of
.single-spa-container
class.