Skip to content

fix: input coercion #23148

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 our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

lekhmanrus
Copy link
Contributor

Applied missed boolean/number coercion for @Input's.

@google-cla google-cla bot added the cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement label Jul 12, 2021
Copy link
Member

@crisbeto crisbeto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aside from the other comments, we'll have to measure what effect this has on bundle sizes.

@devversion devversion removed their request for review August 18, 2021 13:14
@lekhmanrus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@crisbeto is there anything I can do?

@crisbeto
Copy link
Member

As I mentioned above, we'd have to measure how much of an effect this has on bundle sizes. I also expect this to conflict with #23606.

@lekhmanrus
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not sure what command should I run to measure it. I used approve-size-tests.
size-test.yaml:

cdk/drag-drop/all-directives: 155979
cdk/drag-drop/basic: 153337
-material-experimental/mdc-chips/basic: 188774
+material-experimental/mdc-chips/basic: 189051
-material-experimental/mdc-form-field/advanced: 222655
+material-experimental/mdc-form-field/advanced: 222932
-material-experimental/mdc-form-field/basic: 221144
+material-experimental/mdc-form-field/basic: 221421
-material/autocomplete/without-optgroup: 208957
+material/autocomplete/without-optgroup: 209400
-material/button-toggle/standalone: 120880
+material/button-toggle/standalone: 121327
-material/chips/basic: 163503
+material/chips/basic: 163506
-material/datepicker/range-picker/without-form-field: 327676
+material/datepicker/range-picker/without-form-field: 328217
material/expansion/without-accordion: 134600
material/form-field/advanced: 181564
material/form-field/basic: 179979
-material/list/nav-list: 128581
+material/list/nav-list: 128949
-material/menu/without-lazy-content: 214482
+material/menu/without-lazy-content: 214941
-material/radio/without-group: 124015
+material/radio/without-group: 124287
-material/select/basic: 256683
+material/select/basic: 257287
-material/tabs/advanced: 183425
+material/tabs/advanced: 183988
-material/tabs/basic: 182564
+material/tabs/basic: 183127

@lekhmanrus lekhmanrus force-pushed the coercion-fixes branch 3 times, most recently from dc77515 to bd688fb Compare September 21, 2021 22:08
@andrewseguin andrewseguin removed the cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement label Dec 28, 2021
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement label Dec 29, 2021
@andrewseguin
Copy link
Contributor

@crisbeto Despite adding to the code size, it does seem like we should have had these from the beginning. Should we request the author to rebase?

@andrewseguin andrewseguin added the needs: clarification The issue does not contain enough information for the team to determine if it is a real bug label Mar 24, 2022
@josephperrott josephperrott added action: cleanup The PR is in need of cleanup, either due to needing a rebase or in response to comments from reviews and removed needs rebase labels Nov 16, 2022
@crisbeto
Copy link
Member

Closing since this PR hasn't been touched in a long time and it has a lot of conflicts.

@crisbeto crisbeto closed this Dec 11, 2023
@angular-automatic-lock-bot
Copy link

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

This action has been performed automatically by a bot.

@angular-automatic-lock-bot angular-automatic-lock-bot bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 11, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
action: cleanup The PR is in need of cleanup, either due to needing a rebase or in response to comments from reviews cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement needs: clarification The issue does not contain enough information for the team to determine if it is a real bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants