-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 86
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added arethetypeswrong to check built outputs #569
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Added arethetypeswrong to check built outputs #569
Conversation
|
"build": "npm run clean && rollup --config && mv tmp/*.js dist", | ||
"prepack": "npm run build", | ||
"build": "npm run clean && rollup --config && mv tmp/*.js dist && attw --pack .", | ||
"prepublishOnly": "npm run build", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Moved to prepublishOnly, since this only runs on publish instead of on pack.
attw --pack calls npm pack, so you end up in a nice infinite loop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @mattpocock - could you explain what attw
is and why it's a useful tool for library authors as context? 🙏
This package / pr is still not clicking with respect to the bigger picture PR of #570 In my head I am asking myself, "why do I need
So this makes me think that this PR is purely here to ascertain that the change from rollup --> tsup is working as expected and nothing else, correct? Edit: Would there be value in keeping this longer term or would this just be useful in the near-term as a tool to help with a smooth transition. |
More info in this article. You're right, it is partially a bridging PR to ensure that But it does have its own utility. In the future, you may want to consider adding multiple entrypoints to Overall, I like as much of the user experience as possible to be testable via CI. Checking that users can consume the code feels important. But if you don't want it checked on every CI run, I can understand that. |
I think that this is positive change - @supermacro and @m-shaka could we adopt this and merge it to unblock #570? |
No description provided.