Ignore unknown at-rule warnings for @position-try#20277
Conversation
Confidence Score: 5/5This looks safe to merge.
Reviews (2): Last reviewed commit: "temporarily ignore unknown at-rule `@pos..." | Re-trigger Greptile |
bebc9eb to
f7615bc
Compare
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)
WalkthroughThe change adds a special-case warning filter in 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@packages/`@tailwindcss-node/src/optimize.ts:
- Around line 71-77: The warning filter in optimize.ts is ordered incorrectly,
so the `@position-try` exclusion is unreachable after the pseudo-class guard.
Update the warning-handling logic in optimize() to check for the Unknown at
rule: `@position-try` case before the pseudo-class regex branch, and keep the
existing return false behavior for that warning while preserving the rest of the
filtering flow.
🪄 Autofix (Beta)
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Repository UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: 609fa3e4-9eba-4f10-80c3-7c894d3b6651
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
packages/@tailwindcss-node/src/optimize.ts
This PR ignores Lightning CSS warnings for the unknow at-rule
@position-try.This is a temporary fix/workaround until support for
@position-trylands in Lightning CSS: parcel-bundler/lightningcss#1238Fixes: #20275
Test plan
Ran a test based on the issue:
Before:
After: