fix(Node): Do not drop readonly attributes but only forbid updating them - #967
Conversation
susnux
added
type: bug
Bundle ReportChanges will increase total bundle size by 1.97kB ⬆️
|
|
See error when upgrading files on server (and we need to backport to 29 and 28!): |
Attributes that are readonly should still be listed in the `attributes` getter, otherwise this is a hard breaking change as a lot of apps already depend on `attributes`. So instead only ensure that readonly attributes are skipped by the proxy handler. Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
13eb986 to
4a7ece4
Compare
skjnldsv
left a comment
skjnldsv
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I disagree, why do you use the attributes.size ?
That is the issue in the first place, no?
It was never documented to not use attributes for We can branch off if you like and spin up a new major for the removed attributes, but I think in general it makes more sense to keep the attributes and just make them readonly (like I did here). |
f1142dc to
f11ad8c
Compare
…gh Node.attributes Signed-off-by: Ferdinand Thiessen <opensource@fthiessen.de>
f11ad8c to
12b6dcc
Compare
|
Added a test case to prevent doing: file.attributes.owner = 'foo'As this is also protected |
| for (const [name, value] of Object.entries(attributes)) { | ||
| try { | ||
| if (value === undefined) { | ||
| delete this.attributes[name] | ||
| } else { | ||
| this.attributes[name] = value | ||
| } | ||
| } catch (e) { | ||
| // Ignore readonly attributes | ||
| if (e instanceof TypeError) { | ||
| continue | ||
| } | ||
| // Throw all other exceptions | ||
| throw e |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, you can't remove attributes anymore (unless you know they exist on the node already)
2 participants
Attributes that are readonly should still be listed in the
attributesgetter, otherwise this is a hard breaking change as a lot of apps already depend onattributes. So instead only ensure that readonly attributes are skipped by the proxy handler.