feat: migrate to TypeScript and ESM #266
Conversation
| matrix: | ||
| eslint: [8] | ||
| node: [12.22.0, 12, 14.17.0, 14, 16.0.0, 16, 18.0.0, 18, 20, 22, 24] | ||
| node: [22, 24] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Removing these entries from the CI matrix, when the engines list haven't been reduced is creating a blind spot. Is there a reason these versions were dropped?
|
|
||
| const __dirname = path.dirname(fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)) | ||
|
|
||
| const tsdownConfig = defineConfig((cliOptions) => { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This config seems excessive. Many of these properties are set to their default values. Can this be cleaned up a bit?
| "declaration": true, | ||
| "declarationMap": true, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are already true in the base tsconfig.
| "version": "node scripts/update && git add .", | ||
| "postversion": "git push && git push --tags", | ||
| "clean": "rimraf .nyc_output coverage docs/.vitepress/cache", | ||
| "clean": "rimraf .nyc_output/ coverage/ docs/.vitepress/cache/ dist/", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just use clean: true in the tsdown config (the default)? Then you don't have to call clean or rimraf before build explicitly.
| "default": "./dist/configs.cjs" | ||
| } | ||
| }, | ||
| ".": { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: recommend the root entry point be at the top.
| "files": [ | ||
| "configs.js", | ||
| "lib" | ||
| "lib", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is lib still needed in the package, if everything's built into dist?
| meta: { | ||
| name: string | ||
| version: string | ||
| } | ||
| rules: { | ||
| "disable-enable-pair": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-aggregating-enable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-duplicate-disable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-restricted-disable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-unlimited": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-unused-disable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-unused-enable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-use": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "require-description": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this type annotation needed when you're using satisfies?
| name: "@eslint-community/eslint-comments/recommended" | ||
| plugins: { | ||
| "@eslint-community/eslint-comments": { | ||
| meta: { | ||
| name: string | ||
| version: string | ||
| } | ||
| rules: { | ||
| "disable-enable-pair": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-aggregating-enable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-duplicate-disable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-restricted-disable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-unlimited": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-unused-disable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-unused-enable": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "no-use": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| "require-description": Rule.RuleModule | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| rules: { | ||
| "@eslint-community/eslint-comments/disable-enable-pair": "error" | ||
| "@eslint-community/eslint-comments/no-aggregating-enable": "error" | ||
| "@eslint-community/eslint-comments/no-duplicate-disable": "error" | ||
| "@eslint-community/eslint-comments/no-unlimited-disable": "error" | ||
| "@eslint-community/eslint-comments/no-unused-enable": "error" | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similar question here. Why is satisfies not enough here?
2 participants
This PR: