Tobias Bieniek
Tobias Bieniek
@bmish https://eslint.org/docs/developer-guide/working-with-rules#providing-suggestions might be relevant for this
good question, I don't know đ we might have to configure the babel-eslint parser for those cases
> Is it on the same lines with `eslint/no-async-promise-executor` rule in eslint no, it's unrelated > see http://ember-concurrency.com/docs/tutorial (scroll down to Version 4) âŦī¸
as written in the initial post: > see http://ember-concurrency.com/docs/tutorial (scroll down to Version 4) tl;dr: using async actions can lead to memory leaks and application errors if you don't check...
@mongoose700 this rule will be optional, if you don't want it, then you don't have to enable it. > There are going to be cases where we want to trigger...
> Do you believe that async actions should be avoided entirely? yes, unless you know about `isDestroying` and `isDestroyed` and promise to *always* apply them properly. or alternatively one can...
hmm... given the above, how does the `on` modifier call `removeEventListener` on `element` if that element is potentially not there anymore? đ¤ or is the `element` still there, but just...
okay, thanks for the clarification. it looks like my issue above is slightly different though, because it seems that the `will-destroy` modifier is not being called at all.
@bmish sounds like a good heuristic to me đ
> Then I think we should add this to recommended config. that would require a breaking change release again and I'm very much against that in the foreseeable future. IMHO...