Skip to content
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

feat: Add exclude as a complement to exclude. #1289

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

evantrimboli
Copy link

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

[ ] Bugfix
[x] Feature
[ ] Code style update (formatting, local variables)
[ ] Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
[ ] Build related changes
[ ] CI related changes
[ ] Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

#1288

Issue Number: 1288

What is the new behavior?

exclude works as a complement to include.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

[ ] Yes
[x] No

Other information

@sgrigorev
Copy link

@evantrimboli I would grateful if you would resolve conflicts to push it further. I also need this feature 🙂

@jmcdo29
Copy link
Member

jmcdo29 commented Jan 10, 2022

The code here looks solid. If we can get the conflicts resolved I could see this being useful.

@evantrimboli
Copy link
Author

Upon reflection I think this PR doesn't make sense as-is. I think it would be better to alter the type of include to:

type IncludeFn = (module: Function) => boolean;
include?: IncludeFn | Function[];

@jmcdo29
Copy link
Member

jmcdo29 commented Jan 10, 2022

Upon reflection I think this PR doesn't make sense as-is. I think it would be better to alter the type of include to:

type IncludeFn = (module: Function) => boolean;
include?: IncludeFn | Function[];

Oh, even better with less complexity. I'm game for that

@bryan-gc
Copy link

bryan-gc commented Jul 25, 2023

Was this included on another PR or it was abandoned?

@SnowMarble
Copy link

Is it ready to merge after resolving the conflicts?

@kamilmysliwiec
Copy link
Member

Upon reflection I think this PR doesn't make sense as-is. I think it would be better to alter the type of include to:

Yeah I agree

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants