chore(805): nx and rspack on existing project structure #847
Conversation
|
You can preview these changes on: |
JohnTParsons
force-pushed
the
chore/805-nx-rspack
branch
3 times, most recently
from
10b483f to
54e37f5
Compare
JohnTParsons
force-pushed
the
chore/805-nx-rspack
branch
from
e376d14 to
7ef67d3
Compare
| "declaration": true, | ||
| "declarationMap": true, | ||
| "moduleResolution": "node", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why all these new rules 🤔 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are what the command to migrate to nx (npx add-nx-to-monorepo) added
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it might be wise to do some testing on a pre-release to check that these changes haven't had any impact on the built package.
| "src/**/*.test.ts", | ||
| "src/**/*.spec.ts", | ||
| "src/**/*.test.tsx", | ||
| "src/**/*.spec.tsx", | ||
| "src/**/*.test.js", | ||
| "src/**/*.spec.js", | ||
| "src/**/*.test.jsx", | ||
| "src/**/*.spec.jsx", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "src/**/*.test.ts", | |
| "src/**/*.spec.ts", | |
| "src/**/*.test.tsx", | |
| "src/**/*.spec.tsx", | |
| "src/**/*.test.js", | |
| "src/**/*.spec.js", | |
| "src/**/*.test.jsx", | |
| "src/**/*.spec.jsx", | |
| "src/**/*.{test,spec}.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}" |
| "overrides": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.ts", "*.tsx", "*.js", "*.jsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.ts", "*.tsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.js", "*.jsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
are these overrides obsolete ass they don't have any rules?
| "development": { | ||
| "outputPath": "site" | ||
| }, | ||
| "production": {} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is an output path required here?
| @@ -0,0 +1,12 @@ | |||
| { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did we have to introduce babel? do wonder if this will slow things down...
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.ts", "*.tsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.js", "*.jsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
again, not sure these are doing anything.
| "lint:markdown": "nx exec -- markdownlint -c ./.markdownlint.json *.md **/*.md", | ||
| "lint:next": "nx exec -- next lint site", | ||
| "lint:packages": "npx nx report", | ||
| "lint:legacy": "concurrently --names \"code,markdown,next\" \"scripts/assert-files-and-folders.js && yarn lint:code:base .\" \"yarn markdownlint -c ./.markdownlint.json *.md **/*.md\" \"yarn next lint site\"", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suspect these legacy ones will be removed?
| "files": ["*.ts", "*.tsx", "*.js", "*.jsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.ts", "*.tsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "files": ["*.js", "*.jsx"], | ||
| "rules": {} | ||
| } |
| "test:legacy": "yarn lint:legacy && yarn test:unit:dev:legacy", | ||
| "test:unit:node": "node --max-old-space-size=8192 --expose-gc ./node_modules/.bin/jest --logHeapUsage --coverage --coverageReporters=lcov --coverageReporters=text", | ||
| "test:unit:watch": "yarn test:unit:node --maxWorkers=50% --watch", | ||
| "test:unit:run": "NODE_OPTIONS=\"--max-old-space-size=8192\" nx exec -- jest --logHeapUsage --coverage --coverageReporters=lcov --coverageReporters=text", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
given you've bumped the CI instance size should this memory size go up also?
close #805
What
Please see the comments on #805 for CI speed differences (9x faster for lint but not test) and local speed differences (significantly faster for both lint and test, which should make for a better developer experience).
I have done:
I have tested manually:
Before:
After:
Who should review this PR:
How to test: