Refactoring BaseInternaLinkBlock #46
Merged
+2
−6
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
laymonage
reviewed
Mar 11, 2025
laymonage
force-pushed
the
refactor-internal-link-block
branch
from
12010fe to
c64efce
Compare
laymonage
approved these changes
Mar 11, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If there is a good reason to have both a
BaseInternalLinkBlockandInternalLinkBlock, I am all ears. But it seems like this project as it currently stands doesn't really require the extra block for everything to function properly.If there is a best practice reason for keeping both, then we should consider documenting it so people are aware of it and know what use cases having the separate blocks would be good for..