-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 580
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
hotfix: contexts #545
hotfix: contexts #545
Conversation
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
…illion into feat/context-support
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5915301419
💛 - Coveralls |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Two things that come to mind are:
- This approach might break SSR.
- This introduces the possibility of nested portals right? Do we need to avoid that scenario?
Otherwise generally this looks good, hard for me to examine in more detail without more test apps though.
Is there a way we can feature flag this to make it easier to test? Like we switch to the portal approach with an opt-in flag, ask people to test and then switch to this once we have more confidence. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I reviewed the core block re-implementation and see everything fine, I just have a couple of questions around this portal based system:
- What's the main purpose or migrate from the old one?
- This could make harder to make it compatible with 3rd party UI libraries and the future cross file blocks feature?
going to run some beta tests |
Please describe the changes this PR makes and why it should be merged:
This PR fixes contexts by reimplementing the root system to portal based system.
Status
Semantic versioning classification: