Fix TS definition on Menu items #6237
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
ericsoderberghp
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2022
jcfilben
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What does this PR do?
Fixes Menu
itemstypescript definition to use ButtonExtendedProps which includes intrinsic properties.Where should the reviewer start?
src/js/components/Menu/index.d.ts
What testing has been done on this PR?
TS example
How should this be manually tested?
Do Jest tests follow these best practices?
screenis used for querying.userEventis used in place offireEvent.asFragment()is used for snapshot testing.Any background context you want to provide?
What are the relevant issues?
Screenshots (if appropriate)
Do the grommet docs need to be updated?
Should this PR be mentioned in the release notes?
Yes. Fixed Menu
itemstypescript definition.Is this change backwards compatible or is it a breaking change?
Backwards compatible.