Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork398
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
-
MotivationAs I was reviewing the I found this a bit counter-intuitive, especially given that the prop could be completely redundant in case the consumer of the component doesn't need a popover, and decides to render a Usage exampleN/A RequirementsIs there a reason for this API design choice? Should we consider moving popover-related props to the components rendering the popover ? WorkaroundNo response Possible implementationsNo response |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
In earlier versions, all those props were passed to the store. We changed this inv0.2.0.
The plan was to moveplacement
too, but it wasn't technically feasible since other components rely on this state.
Regardingopen
, you can control this state by passing props to components (seeAriakit Popover with open prop passed to component). However, this state ultimately belongs to the store, so internally, we'll sync this prop with the store state.
Replies: 1 comment 3 replies
-
In earlier versions, all those props were passed to the store. We changed this inv0.2.0. The plan was to move Regarding |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Got it, thank you for the context!
Do you think this could be possible for |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
-
This might be possible, but I haven't tried it. |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
-
Just wanted to also flag that only the |
BetaWas this translation helpful?Give feedback.
All reactions
This discussion was converted from issue #4294 on December 02, 2024 16:44.