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

[RFC] 00010 UI5 Builder-Bundling Refactoring #583

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
Mar 25, 2022

Conversation

RandomByte
Copy link
Member

@RandomByte RandomByte commented Nov 15, 2021

@RandomByte RandomByte force-pushed the rfc-ui5-builder-bundling-refactoring branch from b1ed587 to 6c6f066 Compare December 3, 2021 13:50
@RandomByte RandomByte marked this pull request as ready for review January 25, 2022 09:49
@RandomByte
Copy link
Member Author

minify task implemented with SAP/ui5-builder#666

RandomByte added a commit to SAP/ui5-builder that referenced this pull request Feb 23, 2022
Resolves SAP/ui5-tooling#472
Supersedes #282
Based on SAP/ui5-tooling#583
JIRA: CPOUI5FOUNDATION-434

Co-authored-by: Matthias Osswald <mat.osswald@sap.com>
@@ -158,8 +158,6 @@ To be discussed.
## Unresolved Questions and Bikeshedding
*This section should be removed (i.e. resolved) before merging*

Should we generate source maps during bundling if none is provided for a resource? This could be a simple mapping of only the first column of the first line to the original file.

### resourceRoot-mappings

When bundling modules via resourceRoot-mappings, it might become impossible to reference the original source from a bundle's source map. For example, for a bundle located in `/test-resources`, which includes modules from `/resources`, the source map must not reference the original module via `../../resources/x/y/z` as this path rather depends on the resourceRoot-mapping and might be different at runtime.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.
Line 172 IMO should be moved into the "Source Map support" section, too.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done


The outdated annotation convention `//@` should not be supported. All known relevant tools (Terser, TypeScript compiler) are using the new convention. See [Conventions](http://sourcemaps.info/spec.html#h.lmz475t4mvbx) in the source map specification for details.

Any source maps found for a resource shall be added to the source map of the bundle. Either use an [index map](http://sourcemaps.info/spec.html#h.535es3xeprgt), containing the individual source maps, or generate a new source map for the whole bundle based off them.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's "based of them", isn't it?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done



<!--
This is the bulk of the RFC. Explain the design in enough detail for somebody familiar with the UI5 Tooling to understand, and for somebody familiar with the implementation to implement. This should get into specifics and corner-cases, and include examples of how the feature is used. Any new terminology should be defined here.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this comment be removed?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There also further comments below

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done


## Drawbacks

To be discussed.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if we have none, could we write it here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There are. I've added them.


## Alternatives

To be discussed.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

if we have none, could we write it here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Copy link
Member

@flovogt flovogt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@codeworrior codeworrior left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, too.

@matz3 matz3 merged commit 9eb53b5 into master Mar 25, 2022
@matz3 matz3 deleted the rfc-ui5-builder-bundling-refactoring branch March 25, 2022 08:15
@RandomByte RandomByte restored the rfc-ui5-builder-bundling-refactoring branch April 12, 2022 09:26
@flovogt flovogt deleted the rfc-ui5-builder-bundling-refactoring branch November 3, 2022 13:50
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.

None yet

4 participants