Skip to content
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

Introduce rollup to bundle the package #73

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Jul 31, 2024
Merged

Conversation

HarelM
Copy link
Contributor

@HarelM HarelM commented Jul 30, 2024

I've tested it locally with maplibre-gl-js project and it seems to work as expected.
Let me know if there are more changes that need to be done.
Here's the generated package if you want to try it out locally.
junit-report-builder-4.0.0.zip.zip

Copy link
Contributor

@SimeonC SimeonC left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me, I can double check the output at work tomorrow but from reading here it should be fine. Thanks for raising the PR!

@davidparsson
Copy link
Owner

Thanks, that's quick! I'll try to review and try it out in a few hours. If everything is fine I'll release 4.0.1 and deprecate 4.0.0.

@davidparsson
Copy link
Owner

Oh, I realised that I was unclear. I'll hold again, and await the testing by @SimeonC before releasing.

@SimeonC
Copy link
Contributor

SimeonC commented Jul 31, 2024

Looks good to me!

@@ -2,3 +2,7 @@ import { Factory } from './factory';

export default new Factory().newBuilder();
export type { JUnitReportBuilder as Builder } from './builder';
export type { TestSuite } from './test_suite';
export type { TestCase } from './test_case';
export type { TestGroup } from './test_group';
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I recall correctly, TestGroup could/should be abstract, and if so it should not be exported here. But I'll confirm and change that myself.

@@ -1,13 +1,11 @@
{
"compilerOptions": {
"target": "es2018",
"module": "commonjs",
"module": "ESNext",
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is ESNext what Rollup expects, or does that introduce any constraints on supported node.js versions? Or does it not matter, as long as the TypeScript source files don't use any shiny new features?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is what rollup needs.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Target allows to "dumb down" features.

@davidparsson davidparsson merged commit ab97010 into davidparsson:main Jul 31, 2024
5 checks passed
package.json Outdated
@@ -70,9 +70,7 @@
}
},
"files": [
"./dist/*",
"README.md"
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is this not needed? Is this included anyway?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Readme is not needed, dist is.

@davidparsson
Copy link
Owner

Brilliant, thanks again!

I'll run some more tests, update the readme a bit more, and then get a new release out.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants