Skip to content
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

feat: add quiet mode #732

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

feat: add quiet mode #732

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jpsc
Copy link

@jpsc jpsc commented Oct 19, 2023

This adds the possibility of disabling both of following logs:

  • Tailwind Viewer url
  • Defined TailwindCSS config path

This only happens if everything is ok.
Errors will still be visible.

The default will respect nuxt logLevel settings.

This is a follow up on #702 as it got stale.

This adds the possibility of disabling the following logs:
- Tailwind Viewer url
- Defined TailwindCSS config path
This only happens if everything is ok. Errors will still be visible.

The default is set to the nuxt logLevel setting.
@nuxt-studio
Copy link

nuxt-studio bot commented Oct 19, 2023

Live Preview ready!

Name Edit Preview Latest Commit
TailwindCSS Edit on Studio ↗︎ View Live Preview abeece7

@jpsc jpsc changed the title feat: add quiet mode (nuxt-modules#527) feat: add quiet mode Oct 19, 2023
@ineshbose
Copy link
Collaborator

ineshbose commented Oct 20, 2023

Thanks for the PR - I just feel if it's worth adding another config property in this module for a minor thing; I can't say that this is something we're preferably looking for.. it's not quite intuitive to add if statement for every log this module makes or plans to create more in the future.

Is there a reason why CONSOLA_LEVEL won't do? (as asked in #527 (comment))

I also feel that if anything, we could create a PR to consola instead to filter out logs based on tags as that package is more related to logging.

@jpsc
Copy link
Author

jpsc commented Oct 20, 2023

Ok, that makes sense. I was just following the feedback on the original PR.
In this case this PR doesn't make much sense.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants