fix: remove @bind decorators from 'decko' because IE error

[davidrus]

affects: @blaze-elements/calendar, @blaze-elements/select, @blaze-elements/tag

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

• [x] The commit message follows our guidelines: https://github.com/wc-catalogue/blaze-elements/blob/master/docs/CONTRIBUTING.md#commit
• [x] There are no linting errors and code is properly formatted (your run before push yarn ts:format && yarn ts:lint:fix)
• [ ] Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• [ ] Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

What kind of change does this PR introduce? (check one with "x")

[x] Bugfix
[ ] Feature
[ ] Code style update (formatting, local variables)
[ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
[ ] Build related changes
[ ] CI related changes
[ ] Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here) decko does not working in ie

What is the new behavior? decko removed :)

Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (check one with "x")

[ ] Yes
[x] No

[Hotell]

This should fix just affected package which is select in this case, not other packages. Rather create issue for others. thx

[Hotell]

anyway good job, although there is a opinion across the team that I'm constantly nitpicking and trying to "Educate" others in a Force manner.

To prevent that please assign this to someone who can behave (according to team) and who will not have comments against your work. thx

[hopkins-tk]

I think that we might be able to agree on following (we can discuss it tomorrow):

• ideally, commit should be about one thing - once you need to sue and to describe what it is about, it should be more commits
• from that it is clear, that it should be covering single package, thus should have single scope in most cases

However as this PR was considered more like remove @bind decorators, it has single thing it is about, even though cross several scopes. Sure, could be multiple commits in single PR, but than we would end-up with something like this once squashing & merging.

We can start doing it correctly as we will have to if we will want to use scopes instead of affects - but currently, we use affects :disappointed:

[hopkins-tk]

Replacement PR were created:

• https://github.com/wc-catalogue/blaze-elements/pull/249
• https://github.com/wc-catalogue/blaze-elements/pull/250

[davidrus]

thank you @hopkins-tk for your PRs and @Hotell for comments. So I will close this PR to prefer #250 #249