Introduce a 'tailwindcss:upgrade' task #466
Conversation
flavorjones
force-pushed
the
flavorjones-v4-upgrade
branch
3 times, most recently
from
9e3edc7 to
65ad81c
Compare
|
As I mentioned in #450 , the update tool assumes And I noticed this line wasn't changed Maybe we should change the update task to also move the postcss config file to the root path change the previous line to postcss_path = rails_root.join("postcss.config.js") And update the documentation related to postcss to reflect accordingly. What do you think about this approach? Are there any potential drawbacks or edge cases I might have missed? |
- rename install/tailwindcss.rb to install/install_tailwindcss.rb - new script install/upgrade_tailwindcss.rb which: - removes the "inter-font" CSS tag from the application layout - comments out references to 'defaultTheme' in tailwind.config.js - runs "npx @tailwindcss/upgrade@next" if npx is available - new integration test
flavorjones
force-pushed
the
flavorjones-v4-upgrade
branch
from
65ad81c to
25010f3
Compare
|
@EricGusmao good catch. I'll add that to this PR. |
This is where the tailwind upgrade tool expects it to be, because that's the convention, apparently.
|
@EricGusmao added a commit to handle the postcss file. |
|
@flavorjones There’s one aspect that still concerns me a bit. If the user isn’t using PostCSS, some migrations (e.g., updating class names in the view files) will fail. Additionally, in setups without JavaScript tooling, the update process may fail to fully migrate Do you think it’s worth addressing these scenarios? |
|
@EricGusmao If I knew how to address those scenarios, I might be willing to try. But I think there is a limit to how much we can reasonably automate, and the users will have to do some manual work. In other words, I think this is "close enough to ship", and we can continue to make the upgrade task better if we figure out ways to address edge cases like the ones you're mentioning. Is that a reasonable response? |
|
@flavorjones Yes, I completely agree. |
Child of #462