fix: Avoid TypeError for null values on CUSTOM_ELEMENT_HANDLING config. #898
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Just realized saving in test-suite applied prettier fixes. I guess prettier is not running in pipeline to validate against config. Hmm, I'm going to undo those lines for this specific commit and update pr... Updated. |
|
This is great, thanks you! |
|
@cure53 any chance we could push a patch(3.0.8) out asap? We have a specific scenario where we're picking up latest v3 and that would really help a currently deployed product version. Thank you! |
|
Yep, we needed to wait for feedback on the other issue, it just came in and we are ready to release. |
|
This release should fix it: https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.0.8 |
|
Awesome thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
ISSUE-897
Summary
See issue. Change made in utils and test added.
Tasks
Not sure if there's a better way to inverse assert in the test. Please advise if so. Tested locally to pass and fail. It "works" but kind of a workaround for QUnit it seems...