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

Eslint + npm #410

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Eslint + npm #410

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

brettz9
Copy link

@brettz9 brettz9 commented Apr 26, 2020

  • Breaking change: Remove bower-registry-client build (bower deprecated)
  • Linting: Apply some basic fixes
  • Update: Use new SourceMapConsumer API in test
  • Build: Provide browserified builds with npm package
  • Travis: Drop 4, 6, 8; Add 12, 14, 16, 17; check build
  • Maintenance: Add .editorconfig
  • Docs: Use fenced code blocks in README (for syntax highlighting)
  • npm: Add bugs, keywords, change from maintainers to authors/contributors
  • npm: Restore optionator to a regular dep. (used in published binary file)
  • npm: Drop unused semver, minimist
  • npm: Bump deps. (estraverse, optionator, optional source-map potentially breaking) and devDeps.
  • npm: Drop bluebird in favor of ES Promises
  • npm: Use more recently maintained browserify + uglifyify
  • npm: Replace linting and testing scripts in Gulpfile with npm scripts

FWIW, I've added a commit for adding a babel routine against the new code in case any of the syntax was not fully supported back to Node 4, though I can undo that if final testing determines it is not necessary. (Planning to add to a later PR)

@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

I really don't want to introduce browserify. I'd much prefer switching to node modules and using rollup.

benchmark/asts.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@michaelficarra
Copy link
Member

@brettz9 This PR does too many things to do a proper review. Can you break it down into smaller PRs? You don't need one per commit, but please at least have everything in each PR related.

@brettz9 brettz9 force-pushed the eslint-npm branch 2 times, most recently from ad28bf2 to 4942c44 Compare May 6, 2020 05:11
@brettz9
Copy link
Author

brettz9 commented May 6, 2020

I've cut back to avoid a lot of the linting changes (which I can add to a subsequent PR). There are still a number of different items in the PR, but I think it should be a lot easier to review now. Let me know if you need it subdivided further. Most of the changes should be related now to updating the deps and some minor packaging additions (metadata or added config files).

While I know you weren't keen on supporting browserify elsewhere, commonjs-everywhere was not working with the current set-up (complaining about a reserved word in the updated source-map). I intend to submit a Rollup PR later, but doing that now would necessitate a great deal more changes, making it a lot harder to review at once (e.g., by removing from an IIFE to exports, the indent is changed, causing a lot of diff noise).

@sanex3339
Copy link
Contributor

It will be nice to get this merged

package.json Outdated
"files": [
"LICENSE.BSD",
"README.md",
"bin",
"escodegen.js",
"escodegen.browser.min.js",
"escodegen.browser.js",
"package.json"
],
"version": "1.14.3",
"engines": {
"node": ">=4.0"

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

"node": ">=10.0" should be here

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Per estools/esquery#96 (comment) and context, @michaelficarra was inclined for the project to keep engines and only bump if the project is known to fail. I was planning on also adding a PR for babel support on top of this as should allow that backward support (but had been informed there was too much in this PR originally to include the Rollup/Babel routine). So I can bump engines if desired, or add Babel to provide backward-support, but if the latter, I presume Babel is still desired in another PR.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Btw, I've rebased on master, and also noted in my intro comment that I've also added these changes on top of the previously mentioned ones:

  • npm: Restore optionator to a regular dep. (used in published binary file)
  • npm: Drop unused semver, minimist

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

source-map 0.7.x drops support for Node < 8.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ok, but source-map has been a part of optionalDependencies.

- Update: Use new SourceMapConsumer API in test
- Build: Provide browserified builds with npm package
- Travis: Drop 4, 6, 8; Add 10, 12, 14; check build
- Maintenance: Add `.editorconfig`
- Docs: Use fenced code blocks in README (for syntax highlighting)
- npm: Add `bugs`, `keywords`, change from `maintainers` to `authors`/`contributors`
- npm: Restore `optionator` to a regular dep. (used in published binary file)
- npm: Drop unused semver, minimist
- npm: Bump deps. (estraverse, optionator, optional source-map potentially breaking) and devDeps.
- npm: Drop bluebird in favor of ES Promises
- npm: Use more recently maintained browserify + uglifyify
- npm: Replace linting and testing scripts in Gulpfile with npm scripts
- npm: Update package-lock version
- npm: update devDeps.
- npm: Update package-lock version
@brettz9
Copy link
Author

brettz9 commented Feb 23, 2021

Hi,

Anything else you need for this? I've got another PR for Rollup/Babel lined up after this, but keeping it more focused for this PR...

@brettz9
Copy link
Author

brettz9 commented Feb 27, 2022

@michaelficarra : Might I get a review for this? Would like to supply a native ESM/Rollup PR after this if this is ok.

@brettz9 brettz9 mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2022
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.

None yet

4 participants