Skip to content

Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344

Open
Open
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
Labels
generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine

Description

@nathanacurtis
nathanacurtis
opened on Aug 16, 2026

A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.

Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.

Why it is worth more than a warning

  • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
  • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
  • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.

The question to settle

The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:

  • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
  • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
  • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.

Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.

Where

specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    • Specs
      Status
      Backlog

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions

    , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
     blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
    Skip to content
    Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
    Open
    Open
    Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
    Labels
    generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
    Description
    @nathanacurtis
    nathanacurtis
    opened on Aug 16, 2026
    A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
    Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

    Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
    Why it is worth more than a warning
    • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
    • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
    • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
    The question to settle
    The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
    • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
    • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
    • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
    Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
    Where
    specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
    Metadata
    Metadata
    Assignees
    No one assigned
      Labels
      generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
      Type
      No type
      Projects
      • Specs
        Status
        Backlog
      Milestone
      No milestone
      Relationships
      None yet
      Development
      No branches or pull requests
      Issue actions
      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
      Skip to content
      Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
      Open
      Open
      Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
      Labels
      generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
      Description
      @nathanacurtis
      nathanacurtis
      opened on Aug 16, 2026
      A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
      Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

      Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
      Why it is worth more than a warning
      • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
      • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
      • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
      The question to settle
      The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
      • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
      • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
      • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
      Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
      Where
      specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        • Specs
          Status
          Backlog
        Milestone
        No milestone
        Relationships
        None yet
        Development
        No branches or pull requests
        Issue actions
        
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
        Skip to content
        Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
        Open
        Open
        Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
        Labels
        generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
        Description
        @nathanacurtis
        nathanacurtis
        opened on Aug 16, 2026
        A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
        Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

        Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
        Why it is worth more than a warning
        • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
        • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
        • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
        The question to settle
        The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
        • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
        • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
        • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
        Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
        Where
        specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
        Metadata
        Metadata
        Assignees
        No one assigned
          Labels
          generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
          Type
          No type
          Projects
          • Specs
            Status
            Backlog
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
          Skip to content
          Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
          Open
          Open
          Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
          Labels
          generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
          Description
          @nathanacurtis
          nathanacurtis
          opened on Aug 16, 2026
          A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
          Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

          Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
          Why it is worth more than a warning
          • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
          • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
          • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
          The question to settle
          The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
          • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
          • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
          • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
          Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
          Where
          specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            • Specs
              Status
              Backlog
            Milestone
            No milestone
            Relationships
            None yet
            Development
            No branches or pull requests
            Issue actions
            
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
            Skip to content
            Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
            Open
            Open
            Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
            Labels
            generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
            Description
            @nathanacurtis
            nathanacurtis
            opened on Aug 16, 2026
            A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
            Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

            Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
            Why it is worth more than a warning
            • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
            • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
            • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
            The question to settle
            The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
            • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
            • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
            • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
            Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
            Where
            specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
            Metadata
            Metadata
            Assignees
            No one assigned
              Labels
              generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
              Type
              No type
              Projects
              • Specs
                Status
                Backlog
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
              Skip to content
              Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
              Open
              Open
              Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
              Labels
              generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
              Description
              @nathanacurtis
              nathanacurtis
              opened on Aug 16, 2026
              A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
              Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

              Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
              Why it is worth more than a warning
              • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
              • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
              • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
              The question to settle
              The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
              • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
              • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
              • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
              Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
              Where
              specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                • Specs
                  Status
                  Backlog
                Milestone
                No milestone
                Relationships
                None yet
                Development
                No branches or pull requests
                Issue actions
                
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped · Issue #344 · DirectedEdges/specs · GitHub
                Skip to content
                Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped #344
                Open
                Open
                Reader: a code-only prop colliding with a native property name is silently dropped#344
                Labels
                generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
                Description
                @nathanacurtis
                nathanacurtis
                opened on Aug 16, 2026
                A code-only prop whose name matches a native component property is dropped, and the spec ends up describing neither of them fully.
                Code-only prop "Value" conflicts with native prop — skipping

                Seen on a text input during a full-catalogue generate: the component carries a native TEXT property Value and a code-only prop of the same name in its hidden container. The native one wins, the code-only one is discarded, and everything the code-only prop carried — its type, its examples, and the $extensions['com.figma'].source provenance recording that it is code-only — is gone.
                Why it is worth more than a warning
                • The prop disappears from the spec. A consumer generating an API surface never learns it exists.
                • It cannot round-trip. Render rebuilds code-only props from that provenance; with nothing recorded, a rendered component is missing the hidden layer the source has, and the next read of it is silent about the loss.
                • The warning is easy to miss. It prints mid-progress in a 66-component run, and the generate still reports success.
                The question to settle
                The current rule is first-wins-by-name, which is a decision made by accident of ordering rather than intent. Options worth weighing:
                • Emit both, distinguishing them — the code-only one already carries provenance that says what it is, so the two are not actually ambiguous in the data, only in the key.
                • Keep the collision but make it loud — a spec that silently omits a prop is worse than one that reports a conflict as an error a designer can fix by renaming.
                • Prefer neither and fail the component, on the grounds that a component with two props of one name is a design defect in the file rather than something the reader should paper over.
                Whichever is chosen, the outcome should be visible in the spec rather than only in a line of console output.
                Where
                specs-from-figma/src/Component/Props/CodeOnlyProps/CodeOnlyProps.ts:85 — if (propName in existingProps), which skips and warns.
                Metadata
                Metadata
                Assignees
                No one assigned
                  Labels
                  generatorspecs-from-figma processing engine
                  Type
                  No type
                  Projects
                  • Specs
                    Status
                    Backlog
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions