Skip to content
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

chore: add grunt build step to npm run release #844

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 1, 2018

Conversation

marcysutton
Copy link
Contributor

This should hopefully get axe-core into the proper state before creating a new entry for sri-history. My best guess as to why sri-history was changing was because it had been updated without running grunt build first, so the source was actually different. This makes it an automatic build step instead of relying on the publisher to remember it.

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
"version": "echo \"use 'npm run release' to bump axe-core version\" && exit 1",
"prepublishOnly": "grunt build",
"postinstall": "node build/utils/postinstall.js",
"release": "standard-version && node build/sri-update"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe make grunt build a prerelease step instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There isn't an npm prerelease script, so we'd have to make one...but it would only have one thing in it. We do also call grunt build on prepublishOnly so we don't publish without building first. But honestly I don't see what a custom script would gain us since this is such a simple change.

https://docs.npmjs.com/misc/scripts

Copy link
Member

@stephenmathieson stephenmathieson Apr 16, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The benefit of using a prerelease here is it's much easier to edit/read since we've already got several commands here.


If you add a pre before a custom script, npm will respect it.

With a package.json that looks like:

  "scripts": {
    "prerelease": "echo prerelease",
    "release": "echo release"
  },

Running npm run release will output both prerelease and release:

∴ npm run release

> [email protected] prerelease /Users/stephen/foo
> echo prerelease

prerelease

> [email protected] release /Users/stephen/foo
> echo release

release

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm still not really seeing what this will gain us. It also doesn't address prepublishOnly, which isn't the same context as release

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The only reason I'm suggesting this (see previous comment) is that it'll make the release script easier to read/edit.

Really not a big deal tho

package.json Outdated
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
"version": "echo \"use 'npm run release' to bump axe-core version\" && exit 1",
"prepublishOnly": "grunt build",
"postinstall": "node build/utils/postinstall.js",
"release": "standard-version && node build/sri-update"
"release": "grunt build && standard-version && node build/sri-update"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this solves the problem. Here's the order things need to run in:

  1. package.json is bumped
  2. axe.js / axe.min.js are build
  3. node build/sri-update is run
  4. git commit is run

This is creating a commit with the wrong version of axe-core in axe.js, and the sri-history isn't updated until after you've committed and pushed the tag. I don't think this can be solved without a lifecycle hook:
https://github.com/conventional-changelog/standard-version#lifecycle-scripts

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, I'll look into that. Thanks for the info

@marcysutton
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok it took some wrangling, but I think I got it! SRI history is now being updated and committed as part of the npm run release command.

@marcysutton marcysutton merged commit 5829a6e into develop May 1, 2018
@marcysutton marcysutton deleted the sri-history-fix branch May 1, 2018 20:32
WilcoFiers pushed a commit that referenced this pull request May 19, 2018
* fix(core): Explicitly name the axe module 'axe-core'

Avoid the "Mismatched anonymous define() modules" error when the axe script is injected in a page that uses requireJS

Closes #849

* fix: Prevent color rules from crashing Chrome 66+ #856 (#861)

* chore: Release axe-core 3.0.2

* chore: Enable Greenkeeper for managing dependencies (#847)

* chore: add Greenkeeper config file

* chore(package): update dependencies

* chore(package): update dependencies

* chore(package): update dependencies

* chore(package): update dependencies

* chore(package): update dependencies

* chore(package): update dependencies

* docs(readme): add Greenkeeper badge

* chore: update to use babel-core

* chore: update to latest uglify config properties

`bracketize` became `braces` and `expect` became `reserved`

* chore: add sri-history lifecycle hook to release (#844)

* chore: disable growl to prevent errors in testing

* chore: Rename Jest example to help greenkeeper (#871)

* chore: rename jest example to help greenkeeper

plus signs are invalid in filenames/directories

Closes #869

* chore: add config to jest_react example

Closes #865

* fix(core): Explicitly name the axe module 'axe-core'

Avoid the "Mismatched anonymous define() modules" error when the axe script is injected in a page that uses requireJS

Closes #849

* test(core): Validate that the axe module is named 'axe-core'

Added integration test to check the value of the first argument to define()

Closes #849
mrtnvh pushed a commit to mrtnvh/axe-core that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants