luttje

I hope you don't mind me bumping this old issue, but I'm looking for something like this. In the meantime while we wait I've got something that may help others...

It looks like you're still working on it so this may be obvious (in which case ignore it). Since you're using a submodule to your dependency could you add `submodules:...

I'm also still figuring it out so good chance it isn't enough, though looking into the docs it seems that this is the way to fix it.

> What about having json file that specifies what assembly should be loaded? Do you mean to have the user add an additional configuration .json? E.g: mymodule.json ```json { "startup":...

Understandable. Will you support shadow dom (as described above) in v3?

@T0miii Depends on what you find acceptable as a workaround, and for what purpose you need to pack the packages. I need a workaround in order to run integration tests,...

Heya, first of all: thanks for this package! The way I had to write a test for #136 felt a bit unrealistic. I feel like a headless browser test with...

Actually, as I was typing this I realized a nice workaround: 1. Generate a polygon on create 2. Only allow editing the polygon by calling `->drawingModes([])` 3. This perfectly limits...

Heya, thanks for checking out this PR. You bring up some good points. I didn't take into account (nor test) what would happen with multiple color picker components on the...

@driesvints I've implemented the changes we discussed, two things to note: 1. While I said I'd write a test for multiple components on the page, to see how they'd respond,...