-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 699
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove extra exports
and use version from pkg.json
#819
Conversation
LGTM |
LGTM! |
|
||
/*! | ||
* Chai version | ||
*/ | ||
|
||
exports.version = '3.5.0'; | ||
exports.version = require('../package').version; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just FYI our tooling automates writing this out as the string, so that we don't end up including all of the package.json in the browserify bundle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@keithamus Whoops. Revert? Also now that we have more maintainers/reviewers, maybe we should add a minimum time before merging a PR even after it has two approvals.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OH,
Should we revert this?
Sorry for merging, should've waited for you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, when bundling for browsers result package size is an issue. We can use Rollup to decrease bundle size (tree-shaking and stuff) and include only the version
field of package.json
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@meeber @vieiralucas don't worry about reverting, our build process will write over this change when we release 4.0
@shvaikalesh We've already got the tooling that writes the version. We can definitely look at Rollup though; do you want to open an issue to discuss it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also @meeber - I don't think we should add things like minimum time to review. This stuff happens, it's teething issues, but ultimately no big deal. Nothing egregious has happened - when it does we'll deal with it then!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No description provided.