fix: Correctly enclose negated downleveled interval media queries in parens (Alternative B)#334
Closed
LeoniePhiline wants to merge 2 commits intoparcel-bundler:masterfrom
Closed
Conversation
…parens (Alternative B)
Merged
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is alternative A to #332 for fixing #320.
See #332 for the main proposal. To me, the main proposal is preferable.
This alternative approach encloses all expanded media feature intervals in parens, even if they are not negated and do not need additional parentheses.
The solution is very simple, but superfluous parens are the result. See the changed tests, where formerly
@media (min-width: 100px) and (max-width: 200px)now@media ((min-width: 100px) and (max-width: 200px))is output.The solution is not optimal but at least it is not incorrect.
Depending on your taste, you might find this approach preferable over the original approach at #332, as it adds very little code (complexity) and produces only slightly subobtimal output.
The original approach at #332, on the other hand, is logically correct and produces optimal output, but is slightly complex. It also touches on #331, due to its replacing interval enum variants by a set of range enum variants, where lightningcss currently (maybe incorrectly?) discriminates between the two as it comes to browser support.