-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Replace deepAccess
with optional chaining
#12543
Comments
No objections to such PRs. All the browsers we target now have native support for it, and it's part of our "standard" build output, but we still have babel set up so that it would get transpiled away for those that wish to build for older browsers. I believe the reason for |
Keeping open for a linter warning suggesting the use of optional chaining |
Type of issue
Question
Description
I see mixed use of both optional chaining (
obj?.prop1?.prop2
) and thedeepAccess
function in Prebid.js.Is optional chaining preferred? If so, would a PR replacing some usage of
deepAccess
be appropriate?I have a list of such patches for certain modules and would like to submit them. However, my internal build target includes native support for optional chaining. I'm unsure whether this is the case more generally.
Replacing
deepAccess
entirely — if desirable — would be a larger effort considering how deeply integrated some usages are.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: