Document scope of Proxy-backed file address resolution#399
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Follow-up to #396. The new paragraph in the variables guide explains how proxy-backed values are handled during file address resolution, but it doesn't say that this behaviour is specific to addressing through
file(...)itself. If the same value is embedded into the configuration and then reached via${self:...}, or dug into withserverless print --path, traversal still follows own properties only, so a virtual property served by a proxy's get handler won't be found there. This adds a sentence making that boundary explicit, so nobody reads the paragraph as a general guarantee about every way of addressing into a value that originated from a JS file.