Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Eslint + npm#410

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
brettz9 wants to merge5 commits intoestools:master
base:master
Choose a base branch
Loading
frombrettz9:eslint-npm
Open

Eslint + npm#410

brettz9 wants to merge5 commits intoestools:masterfrombrettz9:eslint-npm

Conversation

@brettz9
Copy link

@brettz9brettz9 commentedApr 26, 2020
edited
Loading

  • Breaking change: Remove bower-registry-client build (bower deprecated)
  • Linting: Apply some basic fixes
  • Update: Use new SourceMapConsumer API in test
  • Build: Provide browserified builds with npm package
  • Travis: Drop 4, 6, 8; Add 12, 14, 16, 17; check build
  • Maintenance: Add.editorconfig
  • Docs: Use fenced code blocks in README (for syntax highlighting)
  • npm: Addbugs,keywords, change frommaintainers toauthors/contributors
  • npm: Restoreoptionator to a regular dep. (used in published binary file)
  • npm: Drop unused semver, minimist
  • npm: Bump deps. (estraverse, optionator, optional source-map potentially breaking) and devDeps.
  • npm: Drop bluebird in favor of ES Promises
  • npm: Use more recently maintained browserify + uglifyify
  • npm: Replace linting and testing scripts in Gulpfile with npm scripts

FWIW, I've added a commit for adding a babel routine against the new code in case any of the syntax was not fully supported back to Node 4, though I can undo that if final testing determines it is not necessary. (Planning to add to a later PR)

thescientist13 reacted with eyes emoji
@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

I really don't want to introduce browserify. I'd much prefer switching to node modules and using rollup.

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

@brettz9 This PR does too many things to do a proper review. Can you break it down into smaller PRs? You don't need one per commit, but please at least have everything in each PR related.

@brettz9brettz9force-pushed theeslint-npm branch 2 times, most recently fromad28bf2 to4942c44CompareMay 6, 2020 05:11
@brettz9
Copy link
Author

I've cut back to avoid a lot of the linting changes (which I can add to a subsequent PR). There are still a number of different items in the PR, but I think it should be a lot easier to review now. Let me know if you need it subdivided further. Most of the changes should be related now to updating the deps and some minor packaging additions (metadata or added config files).

While I know you weren't keen on supporting browserify elsewhere, commonjs-everywhere was not working with the current set-up (complaining about a reserved word in the updatedsource-map). I intend to submit a Rollup PR later, but doing that now would necessitate a great deal more changes, making it a lot harder to review at once (e.g., by removing from an IIFE to exports, the indent is changed, causing a lot of diff noise).

@sanex3339
Copy link
Contributor

It will be nice to get this merged

package.json Outdated
],
"version":"1.14.3",
"engines": {
"node":">=4.0"

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

"node": ">=10.0" should be here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Perestools/esquery#96 (comment) and context,@michaelficarra was inclined for the project to keepengines and only bump if the project is known to fail. I was planning on also adding a PR for babel support on top of this as should allow that backward support (but had been informed there was too much in this PR originally to include the Rollup/Babel routine). So I can bumpengines if desired, or add Babel to provide backward-support, but if the latter, I presume Babel is still desired in another PR.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Btw, I've rebased on master, and also noted in my intro comment that I've also added these changes on top of the previously mentioned ones:

  • npm: Restore optionator to a regular dep. (used in published binary file)
  • npm: Drop unused semver, minimist

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

source-map 0.7.x drops support for Node < 8.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others.Learn more.

Ok, butsource-map has been a part ofoptionalDependencies.

- Update: Use new SourceMapConsumer API in test- Build: Provide browserified builds with npm package- Travis: Drop 4, 6, 8; Add 10, 12, 14; check build- Maintenance: Add `.editorconfig`- Docs: Use fenced code blocks in README (for syntax highlighting)- npm: Add `bugs`, `keywords`, change from `maintainers` to `authors`/`contributors`- npm: Restore `optionator` to a regular dep. (used in published binary file)- npm: Drop unused semver, minimist- npm: Bump deps. (estraverse, optionator, optional source-map potentially breaking) and devDeps.- npm: Drop bluebird in favor of ES Promises- npm: Use more recently maintained browserify + uglifyify- npm: Replace linting and testing scripts in Gulpfile with npm scripts
- npm: Update package-lock version
- npm: update devDeps.- npm: Update package-lock version
@brettz9
Copy link
Author

Hi,

Anything else you need for this? I've got another PR for Rollup/Babel lined up after this, but keeping it more focused for this PR...

@brettz9
Copy link
Author

@michaelficarra : Might I get a review for this? Would like to supply a native ESM/Rollup PR after this if this is ok.

@brettz9brettz9 mentioned this pull requestMar 6, 2022
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@michaelficarramichaelficarramichaelficarra left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@SemigradskySemigradskySemigradsky left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@brettz9@michaelficarra@sanex3339@Semigradsky

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp