feat(toggle): allow configuration of default options #635
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
KarimovDev
requested review from
MarsiBarsi,
nsbarsukov,
vladimirpotekhin and
waterplea
as code owners
KarimovDev
force-pushed
the
feat-toggle-options
branch
from
52eec97 to
8d7f0d4
Compare
waterplea
requested changes
Aug 31, 2021
|
@waterplea, also I've added tests for new token |
waterplea
approved these changes
Sep 2, 2021
vladimirpotekhin
approved these changes
Sep 6, 2021
|
|
splincode
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2021
Co-authored-by: Dima Karimov <[email protected]>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
PR Checklist
Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:
PR Type
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
What is the current behavior?
Partially implements #133
What is the new behavior?
Default toggle options can be set via a provider. This is a partial implementation of #133
Does this PR introduce a breaking change?
Other information