Skip to content
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

Broken in React 15.5+ because of PropTypes #16

Open
Sigma-90 opened this issue Mar 19, 2019 · 1 comment
Open

Broken in React 15.5+ because of PropTypes #16

Sigma-90 opened this issue Mar 19, 2019 · 1 comment

Comments

@Sigma-90
Copy link

Since React 15.5, PropTypes were removed from react itself and must now be imported from "prop-types". This breaks react-layer-stack, because all type definitions here still try to access _react2.default.PropTypes.something, but since _react2.default.PropTypes is undefined, everything crashes.
This is quite unfortunate because this module looks exactly like what I need for my current project...

@Sigma-90
Copy link
Author

Sigma-90 commented Mar 1, 2020

Hi Alexey,

it's been a while since you've accepted my pull-request to fix this issue (thanks for that, by the way), so I was wondering why the NPM module has not been updated with that version yet. It still delivers the broken one (says last update was 3 years ago).

Any particular reason for that? Are you maybe working on some major update to make react-layer-stack work better in the new React 16.8+ world with hooks? Or are you in the process of adding some new functionality, like attaching/detaching CSS classes on the wrappers based on their "active"-status as I suggested back in the day (Reminder: Behavior like this: ".layer-stack-wrapper.has-active-layers > .layer-wrapper.is-active")?

To be honest, if one or even both of these things would come out in the future, that would be simply amazing.
But if that is not happening soon (or at all), would you mind updating NPM with just my fix in the meantime so it can be properly required as a remote dependency again?

Thanks in advance!

P.S.: I really like what you did with this and think it is quite sad that it appears to be as if it was no longer actively maintained. I hope that is not actually the case and you simply considered it "done" for the time being but have still some things up your sleeve. I would really like to see this develop much further, it is so incredibly useful and still has so much potential.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant