add contributors

[tbo47]

No description provided.

[aloisklink]

You can also add our names to

dagre-es/LICENSE.md

Line 5 in bae97cf

Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Thibaut Lassalle and dagre-es contributors

Although it would mean every single person that copies code from dagre-es would need to have a massive copyright header!

[tbo47]

You can also add our names to

dagre-es/LICENSE.md

Line 5 in bae97cf

Copyright (c) 2022-2023 Thibaut Lassalle and dagre-es contributors

Although it would mean every single person that copies code from dagre-es would need to have a massive copyright header!

What about just leaving it like this:

Copyright (c) 2022-2024 dagre-es contributors

[aloisklink]

What about just leaving it like this:

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I think under the MIT license, we might need to ask everybody that contributed to this repo to re-license it without the Thibaut Lassalle in the copyright statement. To be honest, I don't think anybody would mind (other than @tbo47 😆), but it's not worth adding legal ammo, just in case somebody who contributed worked for @oracle or another litigious company.

Adding to it is fine, removing stuff from it is a bit more legally dubious.

[tbo47]

What about just leaving it like this:

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but I think under the MIT license, we might need to ask everybody that contributed to this repo to re-license it without the Thibaut Lassalle in the copyright statement. To be honest, I don't think anybody would mind (other than @tbo47 😆), but it's not worth adding legal ammo, just in case somebody who contributed worked for @oracle or another litigious company.

Adding to it is fine, removing stuff from it is a bit more legally dubious.

Do you mind adding/removing what you think is right to this PR?

[tbo47]

@aloisklink do you need more time for testing before I release a 7.0.11?

[aloisklink]

@aloisklink do you need more time for testing before I release a 7.0.11?

Yep, sorry.

I'm testing this with mermaid-js/mermaid and between dagre v7.0.10 and v7.0.11, I'm seeing a lot of visual differences:

I haven't yet investigated exactly why there's differences, but I bet we've probably missed something in #34 that isn't causing an error, but is changing some behaviour somewhere.

[tbo47]

Maybe we have to do a lot more of defensive checks.

When I look at this code https://github.com/lodash/lodash/blob/main/src/has.ts
It is testing if the object is not null.

Or maybe it's the forEach that we are doing wrong https://github.com/lodash/lodash/blob/main/src/forEach.ts#L29
_.forEach({ 'a': 1, 'b': 2 } is not the same as { 'a': 1, 'b': 2 }.forEach

[tbo47]

I think I'm going to revert all the lodash related changes. I don't see the point of removing them and take the risk of having regressions. @aloisklink