Replace isTrustedSignal with symbol #5575
Closed
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
wjhsf
reviewed
Nov 4, 2025
packages/@lwc/signals/src/index.ts
Outdated
| // that rendering engine can track | ||
| addTrustedSignal(this); | ||
| } | ||
| [lwcSignal] = true; |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This adds a writable/configurable/enumerable property to the signal instance. Use Object.defineProperty in the constructor to make it non-enumerable. Alternatively, it might make sense to define it on the prototype, instead.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Class fields with Symbol keys are non-enumerable by default. I'm not able to enumerate on it anyway.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use the babel polyfill for that syntax, though, and maybe the polyfill makes it non-enumerable?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Details
Does this pull request introduce a breaking change?
Does this pull request introduce an observable change?
GUS work item
W-20095875