search

vuejs / vetur

Vue tooling for VS Code.
https://vuejs.github.io/vetur/
MIT License
5.75k stars 593 forks source link

[Feature request] Reference globally registered component to Vetur #2243

Closed victorgarciaesgi closed 3 years ago

victorgarciaesgi commented 4 years ago

Feature Request

First off all, thanks for this great update! Having props check and component signature is so useful, you are catching up fast with TSX.

I wondered if you though of a way of referencing globally registered components?

For exemple in Nuxt, I have a plugin that register a bunch of components, but the path can be different for all every project. Maybe a config file like vetur.config.js to indicate a path to the file?

Vue.component('SvgIcon', SvgIcon);
Vue.component('Spinner', Spinner);
Vue.component('Popin', Popin);
yoyo930021 commented 4 years ago

Hi everyone, If you interested this issue, you can go to #2377 and #2378. View and post your ideas.

rchl commented 4 years ago

Why mixing global components and multiple-roots in the same issue? If it's because it is supposed to depend on the new configuration file then I would still keep it separate with it being dependant on the other.

yoyo930021 commented 4 years ago

Why mixing global components and multiple-roots in the same issue? If it's because it is supposed to depend on the new configuration file then I would still keep it separate with it being dependant on the other.

It is only a message for guide users to discuss RFCs. I won't discuss multiple-roots in this issue.

rchl commented 4 years ago

My comment was about the RFC itself. It IMO shouldn't mix global components into it.

yoyo930021 commented 3 years ago

Add in v0.31.0

yoyo930021 commented 3 years ago

My comment was about the RFC itself. It IMO shouldn't mix global components into it.

I loss your comment. 😅 I think your problem solved in RFC.

rchl commented 3 years ago

My comment was about the RFC itself. It IMO shouldn't mix global components into it.

I loss your comment. 😅 I think your problem solved in RFC.

I might have been confused initially anyway so probably all good.