Closed lukechu10 closed 1 year ago
Base: 63.28% // Head: 63.09% // Decreases project coverage by -0.19%
:warning:
Coverage data is based on head (
6e52e49
) compared to base (9c5c12e
). Patch coverage: 29.23% of modified lines in pull request are covered.:exclamation: Current head 6e52e49 differs from pull request most recent head b59589c. Consider uploading reports for the commit b59589c to get more accurate results
:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.
@lukechu10 I am not sure if it's right place or time for my question :) ev seems so short for naming, maybe evt is better.
@lukechu10 I am not sure if it's right place or time for my question :) ev seems so short for naming, maybe evt is better.
We can still change it but I am personally in favor of ev
. It is quite common to see "ev" for an abbreviation of "event" in event handlers.
We can still change it but I am personally in favor of
ev
. It is quite common to see "ev" for an abbreviation of "event" in event handlers.
@lukechu10 Thanks for your effort on Sycamore 👍 I have no problem now and then I can update my indoor app to align with latest changes in main branch :)
Closes #241 and #506
Async event handlers somehow do not type check yet.This is a breaking change because closures now accept different types as arguments depending on the event used. This is also a breaking change because invalid event names are no longer allowed, and the event structs must be used explicitly when using the builder API.