- Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork262
fix: missing return value for css method#1282
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account
base:main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
Conversation
Signed-off-by: ajiho <lujiahao@88.com>
linux-foundation-easyclabot commentedAug 6, 2025 • edited
Loading Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
edited
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading.Please reload this page.
The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA. |
mgol left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Thanks for the PR. I wonder if that's not going to be too confusing, maybe separating these signatures would be clearer.
If we had another similar API to compare, that'd help with alignment..val() also has multiple return types but for a getter with no parameters so it makes sense. I'm worried here people may erroneously interpret this change as.css( propertyName ) possibly returning an array as well.
mgol commentedAug 12, 2025
When separating, the second example would have to be moved to the signature |
mgol left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.
Marking as "Request changes" until my remarks are addressed
fix#1281
I changed my mind, actually there's no need to create a new entry, just add multiple possible return scenarios
ref:val.xml#L5