ci: webpack@5 test #459
ci: webpack@5 test #459
Conversation
alexander-akait
force-pushed
the
ci-webpack-5-test
branch
3 times, most recently
from
2862563 to
d172ee6
Compare
|
/cc @hiroppy We need use other hook for ``writeToFile |
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #459 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 97.01% 97.35% +0.33%
==========================================
Files 7 7
Lines 302 302
Branches 101 100 -1
==========================================
+ Hits 293 294 +1
+ Misses 9 8 -1
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
alexander-akait
force-pushed
the
ci-webpack-5-test
branch
from
d172ee6 to
6420e42
Compare
| if (queryStringIdx >= 0) { | ||
| targetFile = targetFile.substr(0, queryStringIdx); | ||
| } | ||
| // TODO Why? Need remove in future major release |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we remove this when we release the next version?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, i think we should drop this in next major, i keep this because i can't understand why it is here 😕 Any ideas?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's a good idea which is keeping. I don't know why...
We'll drop this at other pr.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return fs.writeFile(targetPath, content, (writeFileError) => { | ||
| if (writeFileError) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we output Unable to write asset to disk: xxx as an error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it is unnecessary, we should fail compilation if something not written as expected, because it is potentially break application because file(s) can be used in backend
|
This seems to have broken our dev server. We have |
This PR contains a:
Motivation / Use-Case
test on webpack@5
Breaking Changes
No
Additional Info
No