-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 372
fix prerender and webpackconfig for custom directories in npm modules #117
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
Conversation
e476d00 to
03fc47f
Compare
|
@developit @lukeed added a dummy travis yml to make travis happy |
lukeed
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How does this work now that the include function has been removed? Are all node_modules processed by default? Unless I'm missing something obvious, doesn't seem like the module and/or jsnext:main entries will be picked up.
Also, can remove the @webpack-blocks/babel from package.json. 👍
Oh, and I'm pretty sure ignore:false operates the same as its default (ignore:null). So that can probably be removed.
Yes, I see this kinda necessary cuz more and more modules with es6 code under
sure will do
by default it is |
03fc47f to
30f9d15
Compare
|
@lukeed i have made changes to |
|
Hmmm interesting. I'm seeing Also, the regex can be Looks good~! |
|
@lukeed aren't you talking about |
|
Oohhh... that's probably why I got stuck in my attempt! Thanks! |
|
Also @lukeed, i guess regex should be both. As node modules can be js as well. What say? |
|
The /\.jsx?$/.test('foo.js')
//=> true
/\.jsx?$/.test('foo.jsx')
//=> true |
|
@lukeed fixed the regex :) |
|
@developit need approval if all looks good. |
|
awaiting response/approvals here, lemme know if more work is needed here |
|
Hmm - I know I missed approving this, but can we double-check the removal of jsnext |
|
@developit can you point me to some such modules? |
|
Might be hard, only saw the issue in an internal project and it was ages ago. For my own sake, how come the check for |
|
because for that repo, I suggest to include separate files instead of the whole repo as tree shaking is not yet perfect |
|
It was because the import Foo from './foo';
import Bar from './bar';
export { Foo, Bar }This introduces the imperfect tree-shaking (nothing we can do, everything gets However, the On second thought, I think the It wouldn't have made a difference because |
|
@lukeed only |
|
Ah, okay. I guess |
|
It just seems odd the include() wouldn't have seen the |
|
@developit If i include components like
instead of
do you think it would have worked? |
|
I would have expected it to, yes, but in my trials (using a different set of changes), it did not work for the reasons I mentioned above: only |
Fixes #42
This fixes inclusion of custom directories from
node modules.Also this means
preact-material-componentscan now be used separately, without the entire package