-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 246
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix(jsii): flatten out dependency list #454
Conversation
Stop deeply nesting dependency packages and their dependencies. All dependencies are now flattened to a single transitive dependency closure. This will save a lot of space and processing power in processing the assembly.
…n't doing that before!!
…ansitive dependencies. The original reason for including all transitive dependencies was so that the .NET generator could have a full view of transitively inherited interfaces, so it can generate full proxies. Added a test interface to verify that the build succeeds, and it does, so apparently we don't seem to need the transitive deps anymore.
Well the build obviously disagrees with what my commit message says but locally it's passing for some reason. |
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.
❤️
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 build failure is actually caused by the schema change breaking jsii-pacmak
's test.
Stop deeply nesting dependency packages and their dependencies.
Emphatically go to direct-level dependencies only, no need to list transitive dependencies.
The original reason for including all transitive dependencies was so
that the .NET generator could have a full view of transitively inherited
interfaces, so it can generate full proxies.
Added a test interface to verify that the build succeeds, and it does,
so apparently we don't need them anymore.
@eladb, am I missing anything? This seems too simple to be true. Or did we
just get rid of a vestigial data structure?
Fixes #453.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.