fix(tree): not picking up indirect descendant node definitions #17522
Conversation
Fixes the CDK tree not picking up definitions that aren't direct descendants. Also fixes some tests that won't fail if the tree doesn't render anything.
crisbeto
added
P2
googlebot
added
the
cla: yes
| @ContentChildren(CdkTreeNodeDef, { | ||
| // We need to use `descendants: true`, because Ivy will no longer match | ||
| // indirect descendants if it's left as false. | ||
| descendants: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jelbourn this could break if somebody were to nest cdk-tree, but I couldn't find any examples of it being supported. We support nesting tree nodes, but not the tree itself. We can support it, but it would need a bit of extra logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIRC we explicitly don't support nested trees (and tables) because of the trick we do for mostRecent___Outlet
| @ContentChildren(CdkTreeNodeDef, { | ||
| // We need to use `descendants: true`, because Ivy will no longer match | ||
| // indirect descendants if it's left as false. | ||
| descendants: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IIRC we explicitly don't support nested trees (and tables) because of the trick we do for mostRecent___Outlet
jelbourn
added
pr: lgtm
action: merge
|
This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy. This action has been performed automatically by a bot. |
Fixes the CDK tree not picking up definitions that aren't direct descendants.
Also fixes some tests that won't fail if the tree doesn't render anything.