As part of the new class effort it is now possible to define React
Components using any type of generic JavaScript class syntax.
This includes TypeScript classes. This test ensures that we don't regress
that support, and also serves as an example for using React in TypeScript.
TypeScript provides a good demo of where we think property initializers
are going.
We don't have any official *type* support for TypeScript yet.
This test trails the ReactES6Class-test file. Some manual tweaking is
required when converting tests.
As part of the new class effort it is now possible to define React
Components using any type of generic JavaScript class syntax.
This includes CoffeeScript. This test ensures that we don't regress that
support, and also serves as an example for using React in CoffeeScript.
This test fail trails the ReactES6Class-test file. Some manual tweaking is
required when converting tests.
Because the JS community's polyfilling infrastructure sucks and we'll
have to fix it for them before we require this.
JSX spread uses React.__spread
(which might get special behavior for key/ref, not sure yet)
This never uses the native implementation and throws for prototype chains.
Once the native implementations are faster, we'll start using them.
This isn't a good final solution but it makes React actually usable on
its own.
This also makes tests runnable, though only via jest
(./node_modules/.bin/jest)
Can be run with `node_modules/.bin/jest` for now; didn't want to disturb the grunt setup.
Right now one test fails with:
```
FAIL browser/ui/__tests__/ReactDOMComponent-test.js (1.423s)
● ReactDOMComponent › updateDOM › it should update styles when mutating style object
- Expected: '0' toEqual: '0.5'
at Spec.<anonymous> (src/browser/ui/__tests__/ReactDOMComponent-test.js:99:33)
```
which I can only assume is a jsdom problem -- no other asserts fail.
Sebastian Markbage
Paul O’Shannessy
Ben Alpert