fix(MdInput): Input should not be treated as empty if it is a date field.

[drager]

Fixes #845

[devversion]

This should be better handled inside of the "empty" getter.

[drager]

Alright, I decided to do that in the template since I saw you guys did that with some other things. But it's fixed now in the latest commit.

[devversion]

Any references? I guess in that cases there weren't any getters. If not the getter should probably not include that check.

[drager]

Well, these lines: https://github.com/drager/material2/blob/d8603948c36de9718e39284e58d12665a53ca569/src/components/input/input.html#L41-L42 as well as line 9.

[devversion]

Ah thx, yeah that's a difference, since this is just an inline check. And the given variable / getter is only returning the value and not the boolean.

empty is actually a property, which returns a boolean, which means that the check with the date is part of the is empty check.

[drager]

Alright, fair enough. The code is updated and correct then.

[jelbourn]

This is probably satisfactory to at least not be bad for type="date". It does need a unit test, though.

@hansl any thoughts?

[drager]

I can probably get some unit tests done tomorrow.

[hansl]

Please add a unit test and I'll approve. Thanks!

[jelbourn]

CI is failing because IE11 actually throws an error if you try to set type="date" on an <input>. In this case, I think it would be valid to skip this test for IE11. @hansl, do you have any opinions on this?

[hansl]

Well look at that... http://caniuse.com/#search=date

Yeah it's fine. Disable the tests on IE11. Unfortunate but IE11.

[drager]

@hansl: Alright, is this something that I should do? If so, how do I disable tests for a specific browser?

[jelbourn]

@drager We don't currently have a way to do it. For now I think you can use the !(window.ActiveXObject) && "ActiveXObject" in window trick in the test (though still in an isInternetExplorer11 function) and we'll refactor it later.

[jmcgoldrick]

This should probably apply to type=time too? I noticed it does that same thing.

[drager]

@jelbourn, @hansl: I guess this is ready to get merged if you accept the changes. Regarding @jmcgoldrick's issue, do you guys think this PR also should include that? I can fix that as well.

[ross-nordstrom]

Any updates on this PR?

[hansl]

LGTM. Rebase and we'll merge. Thanks!

[hansl]

The failing tests are flaky, don't worry about them. thanks!

[angular-automatic-lock-bot]

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

_{This action has been performed automatically by a bot.}