@@ -31,6 +31,14 @@ test.each([
3131 [ 'group-[]:flex' , 'in-[.group]:flex' ] ,
3232 [ 'group-[]/name:flex' , 'in-[.group\\/name]:flex' ] ,
3333
34+ // There is no good equivalent for this one right now:
35+ [ 'group-hover/[]:flex' , 'group-hover/[]:flex' ] ,
36+
37+ // Keep `peer-*` as-is
38+ [ 'peer-[]:flex' , 'peer-[]:flex' ] ,
39+ [ 'peer-[]/name:flex' , 'peer-[]/name:flex' ] ,
40+ [ 'peer-hover/[]:flex' , 'peer-hover/[]:flex' ] ,
41+
3442 // These shouldn't happen in the real world (because compound variants are
3543 // new). But this could happen once we allow codemods to run in v4+ projects.
3644 [ 'has-group-[]:flex' , 'has-in-[.group]:flex' ] ,
@@ -101,6 +109,14 @@ test.each([
101109 [ 'group-[]:tw-flex' , 'tw:in-[.tw\\:group]:flex' ] ,
102110 [ 'group-[]/name:tw-flex' , 'tw:in-[.tw\\:group\\/name]:flex' ] ,
103111
112+ // There is no good equivalent for this one right now:
113+ [ 'group-hover/[]:tw-flex' , 'tw:group-hover/[]:flex' ] ,
114+
115+ // Keep `peer-*` as-is
116+ [ 'peer-[]:tw-flex' , 'tw:peer-[]:flex' ] ,
117+ [ 'peer-[]/name:tw-flex' , 'tw:peer-[]/name:flex' ] ,
118+ [ 'peer-hover/[]:tw-flex' , 'tw:peer-hover/[]:flex' ] ,
119+
104120 // However, `.group` inside of an arbitrary variant should not be prefixed:
105121 [ '[.group_&]:tw-flex' , 'tw:in-[.group]:flex' ] ,
106122
0 commit comments