Skip to content

Conversation

@oliverklee
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Feb 28, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 55.282%. remained the same
when pulling c615a95 on task/internal/valid-selector
into 19ffd07 on main.

@oliverklee oliverklee force-pushed the task/internal/valid-selector branch from 6464ee5 to c615a95 Compare February 28, 2025 19:53
Copy link
Collaborator

@JakeQZ JakeQZ left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It does indeed seem to be used internally, right before constructing a Selector - rather suggesting that the Selector constructor should be making this check itself instead (beyond the scope of this PR).

@JakeQZ JakeQZ merged commit 3315773 into main Feb 28, 2025
21 checks passed
@JakeQZ JakeQZ deleted the task/internal/valid-selector branch February 28, 2025 22:23
oliverklee added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2025
oliverklee added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2025
@JakeQZ
Copy link
Collaborator

JakeQZ commented Feb 28, 2025

... rather suggesting that the Selector constructor should be making this check itself instead (beyond the scope of this PR).

Added #1041 to capture this.

JakeQZ pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 1, 2025
This is the V8.x backport of #1037.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants