-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 139
Wrong type on OlSourceVector.features
#399
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Comments
Hey, please send me a PR. I will check it and think about if a breaking change is necessary. |
I'm in process of fixing all the types. There's a lot of mix-n-match, sometimes separate types which are not exactly like in ol (like for some of conditions), some are straight wrong. Changing everything to "proxy" the types from ol options. Since I'm doing that on my off time, it's not going as fast. Depends on when the PR gets merged, either pushing to that or a new PR. |
All typings have been corrected, using the exported @d-koppenhagen @MelihAltintas can someone review? I'd like to have this merged first before starting to tackle #378. |
* Fix some of TS typing issues * Fix the majority of other TS issues * Added missing default for ol-options injection * Found some more lingering issues closes #399 --------- Co-authored-by: Žygimantas Arūna <zygimantas.aruna@roxit.nl>
@azygis great job!, thanks for your contribution! I will cut a new version soon |
Describe the bug
The type on
features
prop ofOlSourceVector
is wrong (or incomplete). Currently it accepts array / collection ofGeometry
but it should beFeature
or evenFeatureLike
. This forces us to add nasty hacks likeconst realFeatures = computed(() => features.value as unknown as Geometry[]);
and passing that instead.Affected version(s)
Pretty sure all version up until now.
To Reproduce
N/A
Expected behavior
Above.
Screenshots
N/A
Desktop (please complete the following information):
N/A
Smartphone (please complete the following information):
N/A
Additional context
I can create a pull request with the change but I'm not sure if it will become a breaking change or not. Would like to know if it was an oversight or an intentional implementation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: