feat(ssr): enable @wire on getters/setters
#4986
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Will Harney <[email protected]> Co-Authored-By: John Hefferman <[email protected]>
nolanlawson
changed the title
@wire on getters/setters
packages/@lwc/engine-server/src/__tests__/fixtures/wire/get-set/modules/x/wire/wire.js
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| export default class Wire extends LightningElement { | ||
| @wire(adapter, { name: 'getterOnly' }) | ||
| get getterOnly() { | ||
| throw new Error('get getterOnly should not be called'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This component would be a good test case for integration-karma as well. engine-dom presumably works the same way.
| node.static | ||
| ); | ||
| methodAsProp.decorators = decorators; | ||
| path.replaceWith(methodAsProp); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two things:
- We should clone the
node.keyandnode.decoratorsfor safety (or useimmer). - This is a bit janky because, in the case of e.g.
getterWithSetter, it replaces the getter but not the setter. So you end up with:
getterWithSetter;
set getterWithSetter(v) {
throw new Error("set getterWithSetter should not be called");
}...when we could just have getterWithSetter; alone.
Unfortunately solving this could require backtracing to find the corresponding setter/getter (since the @wire may be declared on the second one). Maybe we could use an enter/leave function, or do a pre-traversal traverse that merely notes with method declarations are @wire-decorated.
| ); | ||
| methodAsProp.decorators = decorators; | ||
| path.replaceWith(methodAsProp); | ||
| return; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like we're missing a catalogWireAdapters() here. Presumably a test would fail if we needed to validate the wire ID/config?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We don't need to catalog getter/setters, because they're not going to exist. The cataloging gets done by the PropertyDefinition visitor when we visit the newly-created node.
|
Fixes #4828. |
Co-authored-by: Nolan Lawson <[email protected]>
Details
Copying the behavior of
engine-server, the implementations of the getters/setters are ignored and they're treated just as props.Does this pull request introduce a breaking change?
Does this pull request introduce an observable change?
GUS work item