App watcher - Build extensions #4346
Open
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
We detected some changes at either packages/*/src or packages/cli-kit/assets/cli-ruby/** and there are no updates in the .changeset. |
Coverage report
Show new covered files 🐣
Show files with reduced coverage 🔻
Test suite run success1892 tests passing in 859 suites. Report generated by 🧪jest coverage report action from 196e47e |
amcaplan
reviewed
Sep 19, 2024
Comment on lines
+249
to
+259
| const interval = setInterval(() => { | ||
| if (emitSpy.mock.calls.length > 0) { | ||
| clearInterval(interval) | ||
| resolve() | ||
| } | ||
| }, 100) | ||
| // Wait max 3 seconds, if not resolved, reject. | ||
| setTimeout(() => { | ||
| clearInterval(interval) | ||
| reject(new Error('Timeout waiting for emitSpy to be called')) | ||
| }, 3000) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if this kind of thing would be a bit easier to read:
Suggested change
| const interval = setInterval(() => { | |
| if (emitSpy.mock.calls.length > 0) { | |
| clearInterval(interval) | |
| resolve() | |
| } | |
| }, 100) | |
| // Wait max 3 seconds, if not resolved, reject. | |
| setTimeout(() => { | |
| clearInterval(interval) | |
| reject(new Error('Timeout waiting for emitSpy to be called')) | |
| }, 3000) | |
| const initialTime = Date.now() | |
| while (emitSpy.mock.calls.length === 0) { | |
| if (Date.now() - initialTime < 3000) { | |
| await sleep(100) | |
| } else { | |
| reject(new Error('Timeout waiting for emitSpy to be called')) | |
| } | |
| } | |
| resolve() |
Note we might have something about not awaiting in loops 😢
| } | ||
|
|
||
| async start() { | ||
| // If there is a previous build folder, delete it | ||
| if (fileExistsSync(this.buildOutputPath)) await rmdir(this.buildOutputPath, {force: true}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not:
Suggested change
| if (fileExistsSync(this.buildOutputPath)) await rmdir(this.buildOutputPath, {force: true}) | |
| if (await fileExists(this.buildOutputPath)) await rmdir(this.buildOutputPath, {force: true}) |
It's an async function anyway, may as well use nonblocking operations.
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.
WHY are these changes introduced?
App watcher now has the responsibility of building extensions when they change.
For extensions that use ESBuild, it handles that using using contexts.
Having a unified place for watching and building extensions during dev is very convenient, as the events from here can be used by the different processes running during
dev:WHAT is this pull request doing?
UpdatedSourceevent type for the watcher..shopifydirectory by default.devflow to use this new feature.How to test your changes?
Having an app with different extensions (specially ui-extensions and functions):
pnpm shopify demo watcher --path <path_to_app>.shopify/bundledirectory, you should see all the built extensions.Alternative: Having an org in app-management, run
devwith the new API.Post-release steps
Measuring impact
How do we know this change was effective? Please choose one:
Checklist