Skip to content

Conversation

devversion
Copy link
Member

@devversion devversion commented Dec 16, 2019

The scss-bundle package has a dependency on node-sass in the older
versions. This makes our tooling reliant on native bindings, and requires
additionally work in framework where we integrate our tooling into a different
environment setup (e.g. different node version).

Regardless of that though, it's generally better not relying on node-sass
or native bindings since we use sass (not node-sass) for building with Bazel.

Note: we still have an unused dependency on node-sass through gulp-sass.. but that will be gone eventually.. and at the moment we don't use node-sass at all (which is good)

The `scss-bundle` package has a dependency on `node-sass` in the older
versions. This makes our tooling reliant on native bindings, and requires
additionally work in framework where we integrate our tooling into a different
environment setup (e.g. different node version).

Regardless of that though, it's generally better not relying on node-sass
or native bindings since we use `sass` (not node-sass) for building with Bazel.
@devversion devversion added pr: merge safe target: patch This PR is targeted for the next patch release labels Dec 16, 2019
@devversion devversion requested review from a team and jelbourn as code owners December 16, 2019 18:56
@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement label Dec 16, 2019
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
{
"*1": "scss-bundle requires a config file in the Bazel execroot.",
"*2": "The config is used in the src/material:theming_bundle target",
Copy link
Member Author

@devversion devversion Dec 16, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't like that scss-bundle now requires a config file since from a Bazel perspective.. it was more convenient to just pass flags & and sometimes needed for $(location).

Though there is no way around it for now. We can create an issue to ask them to make the config file optional.. but it looks like they need it for more (e.g. determining node modules folder)

Copy link
Member

@jelbourn jelbourn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jelbourn jelbourn added pr: lgtm action: merge The PR is ready for merge by the caretaker labels Dec 16, 2019
@mmalerba mmalerba merged commit c734deb into angular:master Dec 16, 2019
@angular-automatic-lock-bot
Copy link

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

This action has been performed automatically by a bot.

@angular-automatic-lock-bot angular-automatic-lock-bot bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 16, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

action: merge The PR is ready for merge by the caretaker cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement target: patch This PR is targeted for the next patch release

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants