fix: add server check back before calling rAF #899
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
joakimgrr
requested review from
pacocoursey,
shuding and
Timer
as code owners
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 8277212:
|
shuding
approved these changes
Jan 13, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Update from 0.2.3 to 0.3.0 would cause issues when running my Jest tests, it would report an undefined function. After some research, the function in question is
rAFwhich is set tonullin server environments.Looking at the diff between 0.2.3 and 0.3.0 (0.2.3...0.3.0) there used to be a check for
IS_SERVERbut it was removed (rAFis named asrICstill in the diff).Since im not that familiar with the project i'm not sure if this is meant to be like this or if adding back the
IS_SERVERis okay, but i wanted to approach the issue via a PR rather than an issue.