node-dependency-tree
node-dependency-tree copied to clipboard
fix(tsConfig): path mapping by filing-cabinet
The PR pending in filing-cabinet(https://github.com/dependents/node-filing-cabinet/pull/100) should be merged and published before this PR to be merged.
I personally tested this PR against https://github.com/jjangga0214/ts-yarn-lerna-boilerplate, with filing-cabinet patched by https://github.com/dependents/node-filing-cabinet/pull/100.
Closes #135
Related to:
- https://github.com/dependents/node-filing-cabinet/pull/100
- https://github.com/dependents/node-dependency-tree/pull/136
Thanks!
@mrjoelkemp Hi! Thank you for merging https://github.com/dependents/node-filing-cabinet/pull/100. Now, this transitive PR is ready to be merged as well! Thanks!
@mrjoelkemp Hi!
Would you mind if I ping you?
I wish this PR to be merged as I want to depend on node-dependency-tree from my new library, with this PR's feature.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Please rebase, drop any unneeded changes and make sure lint + tests pass.
how progress of this issue?
@tianyingchun I will do it this week :)
@XhmikosR @tianyingchun Done it :)
Waiting new release
A test is still needed.
Should we add a test for cases like this as well?
I'd respect your decision, but I don't think so personally, IMHO.
This change is just a passing of a new single option to filing-cabinet.
Even if there's a bug or inconsistency, it's not what node-dependency-tree should find out and fix.
It's a dependency's job, by separation of concern and separated responsibility.
The test is already created on filing-cabinet's side, and should I recreate almost the same test case for the same purpose?
What do you think?
Thanks :)
why we need two typescript config here?
tsConfig: config.tsConfig
tsConfigPath: config.tsConfigPath
Should we make tsConfig (string/object) works correct? instead of add new option tsConfigPath? Very difficult to understand
@tianyingchun I'd like to recommend reading this PR :)
@XhmikosR May I ping?
Thanks :)
@XhmikosR Hi? Are you super busy these days?
Thanks :)
@XhmikosR Hello, dear maintainers! This PR was ready-to-be-merged, but ignored for a long time and new commits came into the main branch, which is somewhat questionable. May I request more attention?
Hi, can the be moved forward please? 🙏
I don't have time for dependents and I still think this needs a test case.
@jjangga0214 can you write tests for the new option please?