-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 868
Add support for circular references #335
Add support for circular references #335
Conversation
d2866cc
to
f295fc1
Compare
f295fc1
to
2f4fe33
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would appreciate more information for why you made the choices you did. Also want to see some changes to ensure no performance regressions (JSON.stringify
) and not using bitwise operators.
Thanks for the comments @paularmstrong - I'll tinker around this weekend to try and address the above concerns. |
Remove the use of `JSON.stringify` for comparing equality; instead use `Array.prototype.some` to check equality
@paularmstrong - I made some improvements based on your feedback; it's definitely a much cleaner implementation now. |
@paularmstrong bumping this |
Would be great to have this merged! |
@paularmstrong Just curious if there is any reason not to merge this PR? |
I just hit this issue. Is there any remaining work on this to get this ready to merge? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for the delay! Looks good.
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Problem
Unable to normalize inputs with circular references. I get a
maximum call stack size exceeded
error.Solution
This PR is based on #330 with a few changes (based on the fixes recommended there):
Array.prototype.some
for equality check instead ofSet
to avoid a polyfilltoMatchSnapshot
TODO