Skip to content

Conversation

@RobinTail
Copy link
Owner

@RobinTail RobinTail commented Oct 4, 2025

found during #2988

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • New Features

    • None.
  • Chores

    • Updated the project to use ES modules via package configuration, aligning imports/exports with modern module semantics and runtime resolution.
  • Impact

    • No changes to user-facing features or UI. Behavior should remain the same for typical usage; only module loading and import/export mechanics are affected under the hood.

@RobinTail RobinTail added the refactoring The better way to achieve the same result label Oct 4, 2025
@RobinTail RobinTail marked this pull request as ready for review October 4, 2025 17:48
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Oct 4, 2025

Walkthrough

The project’s package configuration was updated to declare ES module usage by adding "type": "module" to issue952-test/package.json. No source files or runtime logic were modified.

Changes

Cohort / File(s) Summary of changes
Module system configuration
issue952-test/package.json
Added "type": "module" to enable ES module semantics for the package (affects import/export usage and module resolution).

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

A hop, a flip—now modules shine,
I nibble imports, exports fine.
One JSON twig, a gentle nudge,
ESM paths I proudly trudge.
Thump-thump! The build now hums in tune—
A moonlit bundler croons. 🐇✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Description Check ✅ Passed Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title Check ✅ Passed The title clearly summarizes the key change by indicating the addition of the missing type:module flag to the issue 952 test’s package.json, which is the sole modification in this pull request. It directly matches the diff, as the only change is adding this property. The phrasing is concise and specific, enabling reviewers to immediately understand the scope and intent.
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Post copyable unit tests in a comment
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix-module-952

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2e3b650 and b152094.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • issue952-test/package.json (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)
  • GitHub Check: build (22.12.0)
  • GitHub Check: build (20.x)
🔇 Additional comments (1)
issue952-test/package.json (1)

5-5: LGTM — module type declaration added

Adding "type": "module" here makes sense for the ES module test package. Thanks for aligning the config.


Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

@RobinTail RobinTail merged commit 2aad4d1 into master Oct 4, 2025
13 checks passed
@RobinTail RobinTail deleted the fix-module-952 branch October 4, 2025 17:51
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

refactoring The better way to achieve the same result

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants