Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 12, 2024. It is now read-only.

test(browser): change mock location definition to use defineProperty - #10497

Closed
jeffbcross wants to merge 1 commit into
angular:masterfrom
jeffbcross:mock-loc
Closed

jeffbcross wants to merge 1 commit into
angular:masterfrom
jeffbcross:mock-loc

Conversation

@jeffbcross

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

The original fix for which this mock location logic was written fixes
a bug in master which also exists in 1.2.x. Cherry-picking the fix
to the 1.2.x branch was difficult because the mock location object
used ES5 get/set syntax, which is not supported in IE8.

This fix changes the implementation to work with IE8 and modern
browsers.

IE8's defineProperty only works on certain types of objects, such as
DOM elements. So the mock location is a div element in this
implementation.

The original fix for which this mock location logic was written fixes
a bug in master which also exists in 1.2.x. Cherry-picking the fix
to the 1.2.x branch was difficult because the mock location object
used ES5 get/set syntax, which is not supported in IE8.

This fix changes the implementation to work with IE8 and modern
browsers.

IE8's defineProperty only works on certain types of objects, such as
DOM elements. So the mock location is a div element in this
implementation.
@googlebot

Copy link
Copy Markdown

CLAs look good, thanks!

@petebacondarwin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jeffbcross - Since 1.3.x doesn't support IE8 and 1.2.x is becoming less maintained as we move into 1.4 development mode is there much benefit in adding this complexity to the tests?

@petebacondarwin petebacondarwin self-assigned this Dec 17, 2014
@jeffbcross

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

There is some benefit if further fixes to master and 1.2.x will require changes to MockLocation inside browser. Cherry-picking will just require a little bit more work if they have different APIs, but I don't think it's the end of the world. I'll go ahead and close until a compelling reason to merge emerges.

@jeffbcross jeffbcross closed this Dec 17, 2014
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants