Hi guys, can someone explain how
For example in
But I didn't see tags for
I'm asking because we need to support existent components for
canjs publish model works?For example in
can-stache there is master branch for upstream version and 3.x branch for CanJS@3 as far as I got.But I didn't see tags for
3.x versions in GitHub (and NPM requires them as I know), so lets say we need to make change for CanJS@3 (and change version) when CanJS@5 already exists, how this handled ?I'm asking because we need to support existent components for
CanJS@3 and CanJS@5 for some time, and currently there is only master with tags for CanJS@3, so was thinking about same approach.
@Lighttree as far as i know you need to simply checkout a v3 branch
and release a patch version
thats it
it will publish that to npm and canjs main has no pinned versions so it will always install latest patched
thats the suggested flow at present
here you can see it
the mixed release v2 releases and v3 and v5 pre
3.x-legacy is the branch name
there are docs here about how to publish
can@3 and its sub-packages: http://v3.canjs.com/doc/guides/contribute.html
I'm not sure why can-stache doesn't have v3 tags in github
i think because can-stache 4
is also used in v3
@phillipskevin as far as i remember
ok i was wrong its "can-stache": "3.15.0",
"can-stache-bindings": "3.11.12",
"can-stache-converters": "3.3.1",
"can-stache-bindings": "3.11.12",
"can-stache-converters": "3.3.1",
and there are tags and releases for can-stache by the way
yeah, they just don't show up in github @Lighttree. probably just because they're older
$ git tag | grep v3.
v3.0.0
...
v3.14.7
v3.14.8
v3.14.9
v3.15.0
v3.15.1
...
v3.7.1
v3.7.2
v3.7.3
v3.8.0
v3.9.0
Thanks for clarification.
we're going through this right now. Had to manually set steal-stache to 3
what do you mean @tracer99 ?
Hey guys. Not sure if I've encountered a bug. I'm using the let context, but if I have several of these in a row, it seems to put chrome in an endless cpu loop:
{{let field = ...}}
...
{{let field = ...}}
.... etcThe point is, there's multiple calls to let field = something else and it causes lots of issues.
For this case, I think
with is the best choice, but it appears that with is going to be removed eventually?
@roemhildtg are you trying to reassign the
field every time?
Corret
are you reassigning like inside of an #if or something?
what's the purpose to reassign I guess is my question
Well, I have this stache renderer on several different field type objects. The renderer references a variable
field, so I need the variable field to be available in the stache template. I'm rendering a list of these fields like so: {{let field = fieldsMap.fieldName}}
{{>field.editComponent}}
{{let field = fieldsMap.otherFieldName}}
{{>field.editComponent}}
can you file an issue in can-stache? We definitely haven' thought of this use case
editComponent is like this:
stache(`<${tag} properties:from="field"
object:from="dirtyObject"
value:bind="dirtyObject[field.name]"
error:bind="validationErrors[field.name]"
on:fieldchange="checkField(scope.arguments)"></${tag}>`);
I really am open to doing this a better way though. I can open an issue
each of those
fields will be the same variable
since the
LetContext is at the template level
It won't reassign them, right?
what won't?
the second time I call
let field = ..something else it won't reassign field?
right
we hadn't thought about that yet
can you name them something different each time?
gotcha
so
let in stache are a bit different than let in JS
I can't rename them unless I changed how the
editComponent template works
b/c they are "live"
Right now, editComponent is a template that references the variable
field in the template
you can call
editComponent with a local field
As in... using
with?
{{partial(field=something)}}
that will pass a local
field
hmm
I'll give tha t a try
@matthewp / @roemhildtg what do you think something like the following should do:
{{let field="abc"}}
<p>{{field}}</p>
{{let field="def"}}
<div>{{field}}</div>
im a bit conflicted, in JavaScript this would throw
i don't know if
{{field="def"}} is possible for reassigning
What about this?
{{let field="abc"}}
<p>{{field}}</p>
{{/let}}<!-- field is no longer referenced -->
{{let field="def"}}
<div>{{field}}</div>
{{/let}}
You would need
# in {{#let field="abc"}}
Does that currently work?
I'm not sure
{{#let}} is currently supported ... let (haha!) me check
haha
So would that still create the new scope that
with did?
Because I like how let works, where I don't need to use
../
a different type of scope
yeah ... it would create a variable scope on top of the current context
where with would add a new context
it currently doesn't work
letHelper would need to detect if it was called with # (by checking if it was passed an options). If it was, it would call options.fn() with a new LetContext
and return the result of
options.fn
Can you create an issue? It's fairly straightforward (if you know a lot about stache :P )
I'll put together an issue
OK, in the meanwhile -
{{fieldsMap.number.editComponent(field=fieldsMap.number)}} does render the field partial I want. BUT it doesn't appear to be binding correctly. The only scope that gets passed is the field
Do I still need to pass the
dirtyObject, object, and other props that my partial needs?
I kind of need to do something like this maybe...
editComponent(this=mixin(this, field=fieldsMap.number))
Is there any way to make stache use a
let scope in this scenario?
in what scenario?
so you can create your own scope if you want
and pass that
you could make a helper that makes a scope just how you'd like
True. That's a good approach
editComponent(makeScope( fieldsMap))makeScope(field){
return new Scope( whatYouWant_this_toBe ).addLetContext( {variable1: VALUE} )
}
:thumbsup:
I gotta run. Have a good night!