Fully break @build_bazel_rules_nodejs dependency
#63
Comments
dgp1130
changed the title
@build_bazel_rules_nodejs dependency@build_bazel_rules_nodejs dependency
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. We don't support `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` targets, so these providers are never observed. Just supporting `JsInfo` should be all we need.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
…r` package. Refs #63. This package is now published through the `@aspect_rules_js` `npm_package()`. The `js_library()` only existed for compatibility with `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` binaries which is no longer needed.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. `publish_files()` was only ever needed for the `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` version of publishing to NPM, where the whole workspace was included in the NPM package. Now workspace dependencies and NPM dependencies are two different things, and `npm_package()` already constructs everything we need for the NPM package. We no longer have any need for `publish_files()`.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. Since `publish_files()` has been removed and we no longer ship BUILD files in NPM packages, we no longer need `BUILD.publish`. The "published" form of our BUILD files now matches the `BUILD.bazel` file since users need to add a workspace-level dependency on `@rules_prerender` instead of relying on the rules and targets being published in the NPM package.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. Declarative shadow DOM is now in its own package and does not need to be included in the base `rules_prerender` package.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. These are a relic of `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` and will soon no longer be valid.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. This is no longer used and does not need to be a required dependency to use `@rules_prerender`.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. `@aspect_rules_js` uses `pnpm` so the existing `pnpm-lock.yaml` files are sufficient. `package-lock.json` was only needed for `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs`.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. This is no longer needed now that we are fully on an `@aspect_rules_js` toolchain.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. We recently updated the `jasmine_node_test()` wrapper to use `@aspect_rules_jasmine`, so this isn't really a "copy" of `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs'` `jasmine_node_test()`.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. Now that the `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` version of `@npm` has been delete, it has freed up the name for the `@aspect_rules_js` version to use.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. Since the `package-lock.json` was deleted, `npm` can no longer install without generating it. We should be using `pnpm` for everything.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 18, 2023
Refs #63. Made a number of updates to fix out of date information. Biggest change is just updating references from `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` syntax to `@aspect_rules_js` syntax.
dgp1130
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 20, 2023
Refs #63. These are both `@build_bazel_rules_nodejs` deps which are no longer needed in `@aspect_rules_js`.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Currently we still need a
@build_bazel_rules_nodejsdependency for@bazel/postcss, but once we migrate to Parcel (#46) this shouldn't be an issue. A number of targets and providers still have vestigial references to@build_bazel_rules_nodejs, but none of them should be very load-bearing. If we can clean those up, we should be able to completely cut this dependency.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: