fix: Decorators when super() exists and protoInit is not needed#16385
fix: Decorators when super() exists and protoInit is not needed#16385nicolo-ribaudo merged 3 commits intobabel:mainfrom
super() exists and protoInit is not needed#16385Conversation
liuxingbaoyu
commented
Mar 25, 2024
liuxingbaoyu
commented
| Q | A |
|---|---|
| Fixed Issues? | Fixes #16383 |
| Patch: Bug Fix? | √ |
| Major: Breaking Change? | |
| Minor: New Feature? | |
| Tests Added + Pass? | √ |
| Documentation PR Link | |
| Any Dependency Changes? | |
| License | MIT |
liuxingbaoyu
added
PR: Bug Fix 🐛
|
Build successful! You can test your changes in the REPL here: https://babeljs.io/repl/build/56579 |
liuxingbaoyu
force-pushed
the
fix-super-protoInit
branch
from
4d53402 to
4b05c2c
Compare
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const r = new TestChild(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In contrast with initProto-existing-derived-constructor, can you rename this test to initField-existing-derived-constructor?
I suggest we also add some behaviour assertions like we have done in that test.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I tried porting all the tests but unfortunately couldn't get them all to work so I just added a simple test.🤦♂️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you push the new tests? Even if they are failing, we can still investigate for sure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I pushed it, but it doesn't show up on github, I will try force pushing.🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I re-added all the tests, but I'm not sure if I tested the behavior well, thanks for the review!
liuxingbaoyu
force-pushed
the
fix-super-protoInit
branch
from
f182cbd to
755ae4e
Compare
liuxingbaoyu
force-pushed
the
fix-super-protoInit
branch
from
25c5235 to
4f1ee84
Compare
JLHwung
left a comment
JLHwung
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you. The new tests look go to me. 👍
github-actions
bot
added
the
outdated
4 participants
