Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

[RFC] Move chain/can under commands

See original GitHub issue

I keep stumbling over the use of commands with and without chain/can:

// unchained
editor.commands.setBold()

// chained
editor.chain().setBold().run()

// unchained can
editor.can().setBold()

// chained can
editor.can().chain().setBold().run()

I’m thinking about whether chain/can should only available under commands:

// unchained
editor.commands.setBold()

// chained
editor.commands.chain().setBold().run()

// unchained can
editor.commands.can().setBold()

// chained can
editor.commands.can().chain().setBold().run()

What do you think? Or do you have other ideas?

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 3 years ago
Comments:5 (3 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

1reaction

samwilliscommented, Mar 1, 2021

I not sure I like that, the chains are rather lovely.

I think I would leave it as is for now and see how people get on, if you become inundated with new users getting it wrong then you can revisit it and always depreciate the current way of doing it.

They way I think of it is:

editor.commands: the raw commands

editor.can() & editor.chain() magic ways of using the commands

0reactions

hanspagelcommented, Sep 22, 2021

I’m closing this here as it feels like a non-issue for people. @philippkuehn feel free to reopen it, if you think we should change that.