Run linting on the generated project in CI // add a working eslintconfig #84
Conversation
|
This has revealed that the upstream blueprint's eslintconfig is invalid. I will be updating that in this PR |
NullVoxPopuli
force-pushed
the
test-lints-in-the-generated-project
branch
from
5176adc
to
9bca726
Compare
NullVoxPopuli
changed the title
NullVoxPopuli
requested review from
ef4,
mansona,
simonihmig and
void-mAlex
| ...ensureLatestDeps, | ||
| // Linting | ||
| '@babel/plugin-proposal-decorators', | ||
| ].filter((depToRemove) => existingDeps.includes(depToRemove)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
because of this filter, there is no danger to accidentally specifying something that isn't present in the upstream blueprint.
|
|
||
| ...ensureLatestDeps, | ||
| // Linting | ||
| '@babel/plugin-proposal-decorators', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Unlike upstream, we don't want this plugin because we're using decorator-transforms in our babel config.
| @@ -124,5 +149,16 @@ module.exports = { | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| await this.updateDeps(options); | |||
|
|
|||
| const lintFix = require('ember-cli/lib/utilities/lint-fix'); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lint:fix wasn't running at all before and now it is (and is kinda required, since version drift could change how the output of files end up)
| /** | ||
| * ESM node files | ||
| */ | ||
| { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this section isn't present in the upstream blueprint, because we have a vite.config.mjs and now eslint.config.mjs
| import emberParser from 'ember-eslint-parser'; | ||
| import babelParser from '@babel/eslint-parser'; | ||
|
|
||
| const esmParserOptions = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unlike the upstream blueprint, we have a babel config, so we don't need to specify one here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM!
Slightly off-topic, but do I recall correctly from yesterday's team meeting, that we have agreement to make this blueprint independent from the official one? I feel that layering approach is doing more harm here than good, with all those overriding, installing additional and deinstalling unwanted deps. That can get confusing to maintain and brittle, at least that has been my experience with similar blueprint approaches.
|
Yes! I agree -- to prove that point (because not everyone agreed), I'd like to get all the way to TS support, as in landing #80, and then separating the blueprints -- which, I suspect will make for a much less weird index.js! |
Unblocks CI verifying that #83 is correct