You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 12, 2024. It is now read-only.
The expected behavior (and < v1.4.1 behavior) would be for 'default value' to be set on scope if it was undefined by the caller after the directive was done running.
The actual behavior in v1.4.1 is that
scope.testAttr
Is set to 'default value' for a period of time until it is overwritten to undefined.
Digging into changes in v1.4.1 I think it might be related to: 71fc3f4
cc @lgalfaso
I believe setting a value to undefined after the fact when it was already set inside the framework isn't expected behavior at least it sent me and another few devs for a loop until we reverted from latest and the issue went away
Let me know if the v1.4.0 behavior is expected and I'll come up with a fix preserving @lgalfaso 's functionality if it truly is the culprit. Thoughts? Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This appears to be a regression caused by v1.4.1 (v1.4.0 does not exhibit the issue). Given a directive like this:
The expected behavior (and < v1.4.1 behavior) would be for 'default value' to be set on scope if it was undefined by the caller after the directive was done running.
The actual behavior in v1.4.1 is that
Is set to 'default value' for a period of time until it is overwritten to undefined.
Example of it NOT working in v1.4.1:
http://plnkr.co/edit/B3GKKO?p=preview
Example of it working in v1.4.0:
http://plnkr.co/edit/Y8W7Yw?p=preview
Digging into changes in v1.4.1 I think it might be related to:
71fc3f4
cc @lgalfaso
I believe setting a value to undefined after the fact when it was already set inside the framework isn't expected behavior at least it sent me and another few devs for a loop until we reverted from latest and the issue went away
Let me know if the v1.4.0 behavior is expected and I'll come up with a fix preserving @lgalfaso 's functionality if it truly is the culprit. Thoughts? Thank you!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: