You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If laziestloader is given slug-based widths, it incorrectly assumes that they're presorted from smallest to largest. So an example like this will fail to pick the correct rendition:
On quick inspection of the source, the internal bestFit() method does sort smallest to largest. The issue is likely here, where the slug/object-specific logic relates the best fit selection back to the original hash.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
And double check int-based widths, too. @wmandrews reported that [720,320] failed but [320, 720] worked for him. Seems like this should be sorted on line 186...
If laziestloader is given slug-based widths, it incorrectly assumes that they're presorted from smallest to largest. So an example like this will fail to pick the correct rendition:
On quick inspection of the source, the internal
bestFit()
method does sort smallest to largest. The issue is likely here, where the slug/object-specific logic relates the best fit selection back to the original hash.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: