-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 906
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
docs: blog post v9.0 #3056
base: next
Are you sure you want to change the base?
docs: blog post v9.0 #3056
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
You need to add a link here faker/docs/.vitepress/config.ts Lines 62 to 65 in 0fd0402
|
# What's New In v9.0 | ||
|
||
::: info Looking for the migration guide? | ||
This article is a focusing on changes happened in the development of v9 that are on the more interesting side. |
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 article is a focusing on...
Should be
This article focuses on...
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 are even more grammatical issues, so maybe just paste the blog into another spellchecking tool and fix them with one commit
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.
Nice WIP. Thanks for preparing all this.
|
||
## Optimizing Bundle Size with Tree-Shaking | ||
|
||
In the upcoming release of Faker.js, we’ve tackled an important issue related to bundle size. The problem? Unnecessary modules were being included during tree-shaking, leading to bloated final bundles. But fear not! We’ve got a solution. |
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.
IMO we should not refer to upcoming release, as the blog will either be merged either right before the major release or afterwards.
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 should have a link to the announcement blog page
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.
Do you mean on the top of the file. Same as the announcement has towards the upgrading site?
1. [Create a release Pull Request](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2981) | ||
1. [Have an additional CI suite that tests against our playground](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2988) | ||
1. [Create a GitHub Release](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2990) | ||
1. [Release the latest version to npm](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2991) |
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.
Can we number these correctly even if GH/vitepress fixes them automatically?
|
||
1. [Create a release Pull Request](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2981) | ||
1. [Have an additional CI suite that tests against our playground](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2988) | ||
1. [Create a GitHub Release](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2990) |
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.
IMO we should refer to this as Draft a GitHub release
1. [Create a release Pull Request](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2981) | ||
1. [Have an additional CI suite that tests against our playground](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2988) | ||
1. [Create a GitHub Release](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2990) | ||
1. [Release the latest version to npm](https://github.com/faker-js/faker/pull/2991) |
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.
IMO we should refer to this step as Publish the ...
This allows us to kick off the process with a single manual schedule of the PR creation job. | ||
This PR will then run an additional test CI (in parallel to our normal one) against our [playground repo](https://github.com/faker-js/playground). | ||
If the PR is successfully merged another job is automatically started to create a draft GitHub Release. | ||
This allows us to verify the correctness of the release one last 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.
IMO this isn't the main point of that step, IMO it just gives us the ability to edit the GitHub release to our needs.
But I'm not sure whether that is nitpicking or not.
If the PR is successfully merged another job is automatically started to create a draft GitHub Release. | ||
This allows us to verify the correctness of the release one last time. | ||
By publishing the GitHub release, the last job will kick in to publish this release to npm. | ||
All these steps where done manually by the maintainers, previously. |
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.
Maybe add a little bit of "why" here aka "and sometimes we forgot them or did them in the wrong order"
WIP