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

Additional esm package changes #3684

Merged
merged 32 commits into from
Aug 14, 2024
Merged

Additional esm package changes #3684

merged 32 commits into from
Aug 14, 2024

Conversation

jsnoble
Copy link
Member

@jsnoble jsnoble commented Jul 12, 2024

  • check benchmarks before and after conversion of libraries like data-mate
  • convert all libraries

will refactor in another PR as that could be cascading changes.

  • reverted the changes to the eslint-config package, the refactor requires a library update that would also force a config change which will have an impact on this codebase as well as our others as well

@jsnoble jsnoble changed the title WIP: Additional esm package changes WIP: Additional esm package changes [skip ci] Jul 18, 2024
@jsnoble jsnoble changed the title WIP: Additional esm package changes [skip ci] Additional esm package changes Aug 1, 2024
Copy link
Member

@godber godber left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If Jared is confident about the jexl changes ... or confident that the tests sufficiently cover those changes, I approve this PR as is.

@@ -1,19 +1,23 @@
import jexlCore from 'jexl';
import * as ts from '@terascope/utils';
import {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There are some substantial changes here in this file and not a whole lot of test coverage:

https://github.com/terascope/teraslice/blob/46085ba422e4491666cec886a5d3f9d25ac9e5fe/packages/data-mate/test/jexl-spec.ts

So I am a little concerned that the scope of the changes might not be covered by tests. I'm not going to stop reviewing to consider this in detail at this point but if you want to look back at this a little more closely and consider whether the test coverage is really sufficient that would be excellent.

should either mock the http response or refactor the code
to make it easier to mock
*/
xdescribe('save', () => {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We should remember to fix this.

@jsnoble jsnoble merged commit b7d7ce6 into master Aug 14, 2024
66 checks passed
@jsnoble jsnoble deleted the additional-esm-package-changes branch August 14, 2024 21:58
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.

2 participants