Tools update #384
Tools update #384
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chris-pardy fine with this in general.
Can we aim to get CI passing?
|
|
||
| require('colors') | ||
| const { Engine } = require('json-rules-engine') | ||
| import "colors"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tell me more about the change to .mts decision specifically for examples - the idea of the examples is to cater to the lowest common denominator. Seems like we're narrowing the audience by moving away from .js?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess this is more of a question of what the "lowest common denominator" is in 2024?
For instance should the examples be common js with require statements or can we safely move to module syntax. Node's had support for modules for some time now and with a move to drop the EOL versions of node I think using the module syntax is probably ok.
I think for most people Typescript is the default choice in this day-and-age so it's probably worth having some examples in Typescript. I could see an argument made for actually having both.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chris-pardy ty, makes sense. I no longer work in this ecosystem, so I'll defer to your judgement on this.
Yes, We need to drop support for node 14 & 16 which I'm going to do. I'll add an engines field to the package.json as well. |
chris-pardy
force-pushed
the
tools-update
branch
from
5bb8b91 to
a7793d4
Compare
Switch to Prettier and ESLint for tooling.
chris-pardy
force-pushed
the
tools-update
branch
from
a7793d4 to
a218bad
Compare
Vitest can test all the files, including testing the types.
Move to tsup to build and bundle
chris-pardy
force-pushed
the
tools-update
branch
from
9a8496a to
f234b56
Compare
2 participants
This Updates the build tooling significantly
tsupeslintprettiervitesttsx