Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge pull request #458 from redgvin/master
strict check for currentMeshId
- Loading branch information
d2e0117
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.
@ivanpopelyshev can you make new release with this fix, please?
d2e0117
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.
let me check if there are any significant changes in last month, i'll add them and publish
d2e0117
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.
you know you can just do
Spine.prototype.update = myFunction
, for a moment, right?d2e0117
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.
Yeap, yeap. Thanks 👍
d2e0117
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.
@ivanpopelyshev hey, just in case, do you have any expectation, I mean not urgent, but prefer to use oficial releases
d2e0117
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.
Thanks for reminder!
d2e0117
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.
@ivanpopelyshev btw, I just realized that in our project was little bit hacked version of spine where mesh indexes were names, not mesh id, and nornal spine working ok, but I believe this strict check at least headle case for 0 id right, which prevent additional code call? or we should revert this PR at all?