fix: Resolve webpack dependencies#251
Conversation
Try to use only the public webpack API
|
Thank you for your pull request! The most important CI builds succeeded, we’ll review the pull request soon. |
|
Could you rebase this to Tobias's PR instead? Easier to debug |
|
This is already on top of Tobias' change. is the different |
|
|
||
| if (argv.progress) { | ||
| var ProgressPlugin = require("webpack/lib/ProgressPlugin"); | ||
| var ProgressPlugin = require("webpack").processPlugin; |
| @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ | |||
| /* | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seem to be weird to have errorHelpers and ErrorHelpers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it should be errorHelpers right?
evenstensberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Errorhelpers -> errorHelpers
|
well it is super exciting 👍 the file shows Ha ha, use |
evenstensberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM here, left some comments for you to answer. @sokra on final review
|
|
||
| if (outputOptions.infoVerbosity === "verbose") { | ||
| compiler.hooks.beforeCompile.tap("WebpackInfo", (compilation) => { | ||
| compiler.hooks.beforeCompile.tap("WebpackInfo", compilation => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think maybe this is already commited in master
|
|
||
| exports.cutOffWebpackOptinos = stack => | ||
| exports.cutOffByFlag(stack, webpackOptionsFlag); | ||
| exports.cutOffWebpackOptions = (stack) => exports.cutOffByFlag(stack, webpackOptionsFlag); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you tell me what these things are doing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ev1stensberg the file name change is slightly confused things here. I guess, this was the old errorhelpers content, I think I have to take the latest from the bin/errorhelpers.js right ?
correct me if I am wrong
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep, that would be prefered, thought you did that, so that's why I'm asking
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where did the old errorHelper come from? Tobias? Maybe he improved/fixed some things there
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yup, the old errorhelper was from Tobias, but the current master errorHelper was having all the methods what was there and new methods were added on top of it. So I decided to have this version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So if I understand: You've looked at Tobias's PR, that is where this implementation of ErrorHelper is from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah... But when I merged with the master I saw yours (current master) which has more methods.
Tobias PR :
cf82edb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Keep what Tobias refactored, see if there's any old calls using the old code in the CLI, I'll re-review after
|
Could you explain what you're doing and why @sendilkumarn ? |
c165b1e to
5ed3994
Compare
|
is it waiting for @sokra 's review ? |
|
Is everything set? I'll have another review later |
evenstensberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM here, @sokra can you have a look at the Errorhelpers module? Haven't done any work there, so I don't know which one is better to have ( or is newer )
|
@fokusferit I am not too sure on the test case, but added one that will test the corresponding method. Let me know if you think otherwise. |
| "prepare": "yarn format", | ||
| "pretest": "yarn lint", | ||
| "test": "nyc jest", | ||
| "test": "nyc jest test/BinTestCases.test.js", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
was there a need for this change?
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| "use strict"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 I understand that testing it isolated doesn't make much sense, but having some test checking for correct error output is already better then nothing :)
|
@ev1stensberg @fokusferit @sendilkumarn Should be upgrade to |
|
@sendilkumarn Thanks for your update. I labeled the Pull Request so reviewers will review it again. @ematipico Please review the new changes. |
|
can we do better in testing the messages 😞 It is quite troublesome to update them every time. |
|
@sendilkumarn agree. Think @EugeneHlushko did some nice and neat stuff there at an earlier PR, might be a good FC |
evenstensberg
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, thanks @sendilkumarn, you're on 🔥
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
tries to merge master on top of #229 Test cases seems to work fine. There is an extra line in the log which is handled (needs review)
@ev1stensberg @sokra