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

Make TypeScript always transpile modules to CommonJS style #7166

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

sainthkh
Copy link
Contributor

@sainthkh sainthkh commented Apr 29, 2020

User facing changelog

Cypress ignore typescript module configuration in tsconfig file and transpile code to only CommonJS style.

Additional details

Why was this change necessary?

TypeScript can transpile modules in different styles. But node can only execute CommonJS style.

What is affected by this change?

N/A

Any implementation details to explain?

I added this option to run_plugins.js for similar cases.

How has the user experience changed?

N/A

About testing

Like #7072, it should be tested on the master branch.

PR Tasks

  • [N/A] Have tests been added/updated?
  • Has the original issue been tagged with a release in ZenHub?
  • [N/A] Has a PR for user-facing changes been opened in cypress-documentation?
  • [N/A] Have API changes been updated in the type definitions?
  • [N/A] Have new configuration options been added to the cypress.schema.json?

@cypress-bot
Copy link
Contributor

cypress-bot bot commented Apr 29, 2020

Thanks for the contribution! Below are some guidelines Cypress uses when doing PR reviews.

  • Please write [WIP] in the title of your Pull Request if your PR is not ready for review - someone will review your PR as soon as the [WIP] is removed.
  • Please familiarize yourself with the PR Review Checklist and feel free to make updates on your PR based on these guidelines.

PR Review Checklist

If any of the following requirements can't be met, leave a comment in the review selecting 'Request changes', otherwise 'Approve'.

User Experience

  • The feature/bugfix is self-documenting from within the product.
  • The change provides the end user with a way to fix their problem (no dead ends).

Functionality

  • The code works and performs its intended function with the correct logic.
  • Performance has been factored in (for example, the code cleans up after itself to not cause memory leaks).
  • The code guards against edge cases and invalid input and has tests to cover it.

Maintainability

  • The code is readable (too many nested 'if's are a bad sign).
  • Names used for variables, methods, etc, clearly describe their function.
  • The code is easy to understood and there are relevant comments explaining.
  • New algorithms are documented in the code with link(s) to external docs (flowcharts, w3c, chrome, firefox).
  • There are comments containing link(s) to the addressed issue (in tests and code).

Quality

  • The change does not reimplement code.
  • There's not a module from the ecosystem that should be used instead.
  • There is no redundant or duplicate code.
  • There are no irrelevant comments left in the code.
  • Tests are testing the code’s intended functionality in the best way possible.

Internal

  • The original issue has been tagged with a release in ZenHub.

@sainthkh sainthkh marked this pull request as draft April 29, 2020 07:31
@sainthkh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flaky tests.

@sainthkh sainthkh marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2020 08:20
@bahmutov bahmutov self-requested a review April 30, 2020 16:10
Copy link
Contributor

@bahmutov bahmutov left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

looks good and fixes the original problem, nice.
I think the only thing it needs is a test in packages/server/test/e2e with a corresponding TS project in packages/server/.projects (tsconfig.json with some weird module setting)

@bahmutov
Copy link
Contributor

I tried this branch against #7043 and it is also resolved

@bahmutov
Copy link
Contributor

bahmutov commented May 1, 2020

Closing in favor of #7197 @sainthkh where I cherry-picked your commits

@bahmutov bahmutov closed this May 1, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants