🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: f4461cf

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

could you catch up from main? there will be big conflicts since i split the modules into individual files 😬

i'd also rework this slightly to just have a top level frames option and delay option, rather than custom

@43081j for sure!

Caught up and flattened custom into the regular options!

looks good to me, but can you add some tests?

we need to test the two individually:

• custom frames
• custom delay

you can assert the delay worked by using vitest's fake timers (we already use them in spinner tests)

@43081j implemented comments and added tests for spinner & delay, I think I'm doing something wrong but I can't figure out where the issue is-- vitest is reporting these errors after I implement any arbitrary describe/test block:

(node:39957) MaxListenersExceededWarning: Possible EventEmitter memory leak detected. 11 end listeners added to [ReadableWorkerStdio]. Use emitter.setMaxListeners() to increase limit
(node:39957) MaxListenersExceededWarning: Possible EventEmitter memory leak detected. 11 unhandledRejection listeners added to [process]. Use emitter.setMaxListeners() to increase limit
(node:39957) MaxListenersExceededWarning: Possible EventEmitter memory leak detected. 11 error listeners added to [ReadableWorkerStdio]. Use emitter.setMaxListeners() to increase limit
(node:39957) MaxListenersExceededWarning: Possible EventEmitter memory leak detected. 11 keypress listeners added to [ReadableWorkerStdio]. Use emitter.setMaxListeners() to increase limit

that will be because you need to stop() your spinner in the test, before asserting the buffer

if you catch up from main, you'll get conflicts in your snapshots i think. just make sure locally you pnpm i then re-run your tests and update the snapshots

Ah nice, vitest was updated!

Caught up & added frame for loop and result.stop(). No snapshot conflicts afaict.

seems odd the snapshots didn't update 🤔

ANSI codes get serialised now into human-readable strings, so it definitely should've updated them

@example/basic • @example/changesets

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/bombshell-dev/clack/@clack/core@247

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/bombshell-dev/clack/@clack/prompts@247

commit: f4461cf

ah it looks like you still need to catch up from main (github says 2 commits behind, which makes sense as thats where the snapshot change is)

ah it looks like you still need to catch up from main (github says 2 commits behind, which makes sense as thats where the snapshot change is)

my bad, I think I was behind on main updates, woops- did another catch up and indeed new snapshots with ANSI codes replaced

@43081j
Caught up and moved the stop calls in front of assertions, updated snapshots

@43081j
Pushed changeset! Let me know if that looks ok to you 🙏

will release it as part of the next 1.0 pre-release (nate may backport it if needed though)