This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 3, 2023. It is now read-only.
Correct instantiation conditions for markdown-it #92
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
|
@Galadirith Looks fine to me. Thanks for catching this 👍 Just merge, if this is production ready ;) |
Galadirith
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 3, 2015
Correct instantiation conditions for markdown-it
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@leipert While I was twiddling away with #88 I noticed that
markdown-itseems to still be being instanced for every edit of the source. It looks like a couple of the conditions weren't working:markdownItOptions isnt getOptions()was always returning true. I replaced this withL49as the only variable in the options ismarkdown-preview-plus.breakOnSingleNewline.markdownIt?is false ifmarkdownIt === null || markdownIt === undefinedwhich is exactly the opposite of what we want.I'm not sure if this really gives any perceived performance benefit, but not instancing every parse must be at least a little bit better :D