This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 7, 2021. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 127
Cleanup how optimize streams work, in preparation for babel stream #524
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
0774cec
Cleanup how optimize streams work, in preparation for babel stream
1d8868f
death to lets
dc7568f
redeisn optimize interface
5834a14
pull stream piping into a helper function
6a3d803
rollback cli dash-case naming
3d741b6
Merge branch 'new-build-flags' into build-optimize-cleanup
c63c4ce
remove unused gulpif
2f4a91d
update buildoptions to match planned polymer.json options
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not so sure about this change. The reason for namespacing flags like
html.collapseWhitespace
was to at some point be able to easily map flags to build options. Continuing that pattern would lead to js.minify, css.minify and html.minify.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I really dislike the
.
in the command line flag, a dash feels much more natural and doesn't break the expected CLI dash-case naming convention. We can still map easily regardless of.
or-
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think it's that uncommon to use
.
when flags map to JSON-like structures. Mapping with-
is harder: doesfoo-bar-baz
map tofoo.bar.baz
,foo.bar-baz
, etc.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But the user will never know about or use that JSON-like structure, right? If we were maintaining a large set of rules or mapping to an interface that the user was familiar with I would agree, but I don't see the point in breaking our expected naming system by mapping to an internal interface that could change at any time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The user probably will, when we explain that the flags map to the options in polymer.json
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I hadn't assumed we'd use the same options for
build()
inpolymer.json
.Can we table this decision then until we start on the polymer.json options? I think that will be a more productive conversation when those options actually exist vs. planning for something we haven't really thought through yet (at least I haven't yet).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can, but the pattern had been set up with that goal in mind. If we defer the discussion can we stick with the current pattern?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sure thing, rolling backdiscussed and planned out in person, our flags will use this format (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mD1cVhxdxY-bUsGBX44anC1875Afx7UHue4uRCNVc4o). Updating the BuildOptions to match the planned polymer.json options now.