chore: use cjs extension with scripts#5877
Merged
Merged
Conversation
patak-cat
previously approved these changes
Nov 28, 2021
bluwy
previously approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
Collaborator
Author
|
I pushed an update to rename all files in the |
bluwy
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
Shinigami92
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
Member
Shinigami92
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
question: Would it be better to use esno and use TS files for most of these files?
That way it could be a bit better typed and therefore easier for contributors to work with.
patak-cat
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
antfu
approved these changes
Nov 29, 2021
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Use
.cjsextension with Node.js scriptsAdditional context
I was looking at what would be required to set
"type": "module". This is a change that can be broken off easily and done ahead of time in a way that works with or without setting"type": "module"Longer-term we'll probably want to convert these to ESM, but that'd make the migration more of a big bang and it'd probably be easier to do it incrementally
What is the purpose of this pull request?
Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following
fixes #123).