Added arethetypeswrong to check built outputs#569
Added arethetypeswrong to check built outputs#569mattpocock wants to merge 3 commits intosupermacro:masterfrom
Conversation
|
| "build": "npm run clean && rollup --config && mv tmp/*.js dist", | ||
| "prepack": "npm run build", | ||
| "build": "npm run clean && rollup --config && mv tmp/*.js dist && attw --pack .", | ||
| "prepublishOnly": "npm run build", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Moved to prepublishOnly, since this only runs on publish instead of on pack.
attw --pack calls npm pack, so you end up in a nice infinite loop.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey @mattpocock - could you explain what attw is and why it's a useful tool for library authors as context? 🙏
|
This package / pr is still not clicking with respect to the bigger picture PR of #570 In my head I am asking myself, "why do I need
So this makes me think that this PR is purely here to ascertain that the change from rollup --> tsup is working as expected and nothing else, correct? Edit: Would there be value in keeping this longer term or would this just be useful in the near-term as a tool to help with a smooth transition. |
|
More info in this article. You're right, it is partially a bridging PR to ensure that But it does have its own utility. In the future, you may want to consider adding multiple entrypoints to Overall, I like as much of the user experience as possible to be testable via CI. Checking that users can consume the code feels important. But if you don't want it checked on every CI run, I can understand that. |
|
I think that this is positive change - @supermacro and @m-shaka could we adopt this and merge it to unblock #570? |
Replaces #569 since resolving conflicts in package lock would be too cumbersome
|
Replaced by #618 |
No description provided.