Looks like the answer to why your initial solution didn't work has been answered. I just wanted to leave a few suggestions.
Avoid using == in favor of ===. == Will attempt to type convert and unless that's what you need you can run into some false positives. If it is what you explicitly need you're better off converting and then comparing with === yourself
Instead of checking _.isEmpty(thing) == false, you can write !isEmpty(thing). It'll be easier to read when/if you or anyone else has to come back and do additional work on this code.
You're mixing two flavors of syntax with an ES5 function definition and an ES6 fat arrow function definition. It's not wrong but unless you have a good reason for it, it's probably better to stick to one again for code legibility down the line.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Looks like the answer to why your initial solution didn't work has been answered. I just wanted to leave a few suggestions.
Avoid using == in favor of ===. == Will attempt to type convert and unless that's what you need you can run into some false positives. If it is what you explicitly need you're better off converting and then comparing with === yourself
Instead of checking _.isEmpty(thing) == false, you can write !isEmpty(thing). It'll be easier to read when/if you or anyone else has to come back and do additional work on this code.
You're mixing two flavors of syntax with an ES5 function definition and an ES6 fat arrow function definition. It's not wrong but unless you have a good reason for it, it's probably better to stick to one again for code legibility down the line.