fix: handle mid-position mixin correctly (#19) #21
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Changed regex from (?:\\s+\\.\\.\\.)?$ to \\s+\\.\\.\\. so spread attributes are recognized even when followed by other attributes. Prevents mixins from being ignored and keeps template behavior consistent.
|
|
dariomannu
reviewed
Sep 22, 2025
| import { join } from 'path'; | ||
| import typescript from '@rollup/plugin-typescript'; | ||
| import { visualizer } from 'rollup-plugin-visualizer'; | ||
| import { createRequire } from 'module'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need this? Suspect we may not; would be great if we could keep using modern ES modules only, instead of the old require stuff.
| import { isObservable, isPromise } from "../types/futures" | ||
| import { isRMLEventListener } from "../types/event-listener"; | ||
| import { toListener } from "../utils/to-listener"; | ||
| import { DatasetItemPreSink } from "../sinks/dataset-sink"; |
| /** | ||
| * Fix: Resolve mixin position dependency issue | ||
| * | ||
| * Problem: The regex pattern `(?:\s+\.\.\.)?$` made the spread operator detection optional and |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(?:\s+\.\.\.)?
That spread "operator" is meant to be an optional piece of syntactic sugar and we'd rather keep it optional, as some people may not like it...
|
Hi @NtohnwiBih how are you getting on? We're nearly there... can you just fix that little thing above, please, so we can merge this change? If something's not clear, please shout! |
|
I am so sorry, I have issues with my laptop but I will get to it soon as I
get it fixed
…On Fri, Oct 3, 2025, 2:53 PM D++ ***@***.***> wrote:
*dariomannu* left a comment (ReactiveHTML/rimmel#21)
<#21 (comment)>
Hi @NtohnwiBih <https://github.com/NtohnwiBih> how are you getting on?
We're nearly there... can you just fix that little thing above, please, so
we can merge this change? If something's not clear, please shout!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#21 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BCAOXZWO53CXWSCTPRI7TVD3VZ5VHAVCNFSM6AAAAACHDPQY3CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGNRVG43DMMRXHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Description:
This pull request fixies an issue where mixins using the spread operator (...) were ignored when followed by other interpolated attributes in templates.
Problem:
The regex pattern (?:\s+...)?$ made the spread operator detection optional and required it to be at the end of the accumulated string. As a result, mixins were ignored in cases like:
<button ...${Red()} onclick="${count}"> <!-- Red() mixin was ignored -->Solution:
The regex has been updated to \s+... (non-optional), ensuring the spread syntax is properly detected during parsing regardless of subsequent attributes.
Impact:
Related Issue: #19