Skip to content

Conversation

@paoloricciuti
Copy link
Member

Alternative to #15948 that opts you in runes mode whenever you use an attachment.

Personally I'm in more in favour of #15948 because:

  1. this is technically a breaking change (although we could just label it as a fix since it was just released)
  2. using attachments in legacy mode in not generally a problem, is just confusing when you do from an object and mutate another property of that object in the same component and a warning can already guide you through the right solution
  3. this would mean that if you want to use the new feature of spreading attachments through component you would have to migrate your component which sometimes (for big components) might not be feasible.

But we could also do this.

Not sure which kind of test i should add for this, any ideas?

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

  • It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
  • Prefix your PR title with feat:, fix:, chore:, or docs:.
  • This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
  • Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.
  • If this PR changes code within packages/svelte/src, add a changeset (npx changeset).

Tests and linting

  • Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented May 19, 2025

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: ccdf3a7

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package
Name Type
svelte Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@svelte-docs-bot
Copy link

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

Playground

pnpm add https://pkg.pr.new/svelte@15953

@Rich-Harris
Copy link
Member

Alternative: #15962

@Rich-Harris
Copy link
Member

closing in favour of #15962

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.

3 participants