fix(toggle): handle falsy input as expected #82
Merged
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
|
I'm not huge on catering to anyone relying on undocumented behavior. For however many do, there's a hypothetical equal number of users whose code is unknowingly broken without this patch. That means I'd be fine with treating this as a non-breaking change. |
aleclarson
changed the title
aleclarson
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2024
|
Thanks @Minhir! |
|
A new beta version To install: pnpm add radashi@12.2.0-beta.0dc9c8aThe 
|
|
Resolves sodiray/radash#417 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Tip
The owner of this PR can publish a preview release by commenting
/publishin this PR. Afterwards, anyone can try it out by runningpnpm add radashi@pr<PR_NUMBER>.Summary
Previously, toggle didn't work with falsy values in array
toggle([1, 2], 0).Related issue, if any:
For any code change,
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
It could be a breaking change (even if it's clearly bug). I think it should be released together with #70.