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
Update Rollup #1310
Update Rollup #1310
Conversation
@adamdbradley I looked into fixing the tests and they all fail with the same error because of an upstream issue of E. g. for Here is the related code: https://github.com/browserify/resolve/blob/v1.9.0/lib/async.js#L47-L50. It breaks the I switched out
|
The AppVeyor build fail seems to be unrelated as the same thing fails in other PRs as well (I'm pretty sure it's because of how The karma test fails because it tries to generate a bundle with entry
Would be nice if someone could point me in the right direction as to why this happens, as I use a |
Does rollup uses browserify/resolve? yep i noticed the same problem with undefined, I would be super happy to merge this PR once this issue with undefined is resolved. Btw, thanks a lot for the PR! |
Not Rollup itself, but A workaround I found is to pass @manucorporat any idea about why Rollup would fail with the |
Ok, I'll dig into this more, thanks |
thanks!!! I've got some fixes after this merge too that should get everything up to speed. |
Nice, just got it in Stencil 0.16.4 |
This updates Rollup to the latest version (
1.1.0
) which introduced breaking changes (see this PR: rollup/rollup#2293).The main difference is that Rollup's
bundle.generate
now returns a different format.experimentalCodeSplitting
is on by default now and has been removed, so I removed it from the Rollup config.For
src/compiler/bundle/write-bundles.ts
, I had to map the array into a different format: previously the chunks were returned as an object, but now it is an array of objects:
Not sure whether my
.map
and.reduce
approach is bad performance-wise (I didn't notice a difference for my project)... it might be better to change the signature of the receiving function in order to avoid this transformation?Closes #1306.