-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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(build): use typescript to produce declaration files #550
Conversation
I'm not sure why there is a build system here. It isn't very useful here as there isn't any JavaScript code at all, it's only types. I propose to instead remove the need for the build system instead and simply just use typescript to produce declaration filea. |
Agreed |
Hi, I'm just coming back to this now.
I'm happy to strip out esbuild, glob, and the current build system. Are there other actions I'm missing that are required to produce declaration files, or is the existence of the files themselves enough? |
|
We will still need a build script to generate the |
packages: "external", | ||
}; | ||
|
||
async function main() { |
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.
Indentation needs fixing
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.
npm run lint:fix
reports correct indentation for me.
Co-authored-by: wolfy1339 <[email protected]>
I've added an Actions step to run |
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.
This workflow is independent of any specific Node version, so use the latest LTS release available on GitHub actions. Like in other repositories
Co-authored-by: wolfy1339 <[email protected]>
I see why. The directory doesn't exist at the time we try to copy |
Ahh, yep! I've added a call to
which seems correct to me. |
Co-authored-by: wolfy1339 <[email protected]>
Why target the |
Ahh, I was thinking to batch with the present changes there but I realize this shouldn't be a breaking change so there's no reason to do so. I've changed it back now. |
🎉 This PR is included in version 9.3.2 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
Replicating octokit/request.js#584 to another repo.
Pika has been deprecated for a while now, and the project has now been archived, and because of that the released npm package is missing most of the files generated by the build step.
Uses esbuild to transpile the TS source code into an ESM source, NodeJs bundle, and a browser bundle
Uses the TypeScript compiler to generate the types.
Behavior
Before the change?
dist-node
,dist-types
,dist-web
... even though they are generated correctly.After the change?
Additional info
Pull request checklist
Does this introduce a breaking change?
Please see our docs on breaking changes to help!
Type: Breaking change
label)If
Yes
, what's the impact:Pull request type
Please add the corresponding label for change this PR introduces:
Type: Bug
Type: Maintenance