Fix early exit when enableBuild is true

[fgblomqvist]

Fixes #60.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #61 (323076f) into main (1403f6f) will increase coverage by 4.37%.
The diff coverage is 66.66%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #61      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   30.03%   34.41%   +4.37%     
==========================================
  Files          13       13              
  Lines         576      587      +11     
  Branches      118      114       -4     
==========================================
+ Hits          173      202      +29     
+ Misses        403      384      -19     
- Partials        0        1       +1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
packages/vite-plugin-checker/src/main.ts	67.27% <66.66%> (+1.81%)	⬆️
packages/vite-plugin-checker/src/Checker.ts	89.28% <0.00%> (ø)
...es/vite-plugin-checker/src/checkers/eslint/main.ts	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
packages/vite-plugin-checker/src/logger.ts	45.94% <0.00%> (+25.59%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1403f6f...323076f. Read the comment docs.

[fgblomqvist]

It's better to throw an error instead of silently killing the process. This is what it would look like with this MR:

vite v2.3.8 building for production...
✓ 0 modules transformed.
[vite-plugin-checker] one of the checkers failed with exit code 1
error during build:
Error: one of the checkers failed with exit code 1
    at Object.buildStart (/app/node_modules/vite-plugin-checker/lib/main.js:74:19)
    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:93:5)

[fi3ework]

if we await here. The checker and the rollup build will run sequentially. Is it better to run parallelly? 🤔

[fgblomqvist]

Depends on what the purpose of running the checker on build is? I can see both being valid perhaps? Even if you wanted to run it in parallel, you could still utilize async/await (just spawn a new async function at the end). But yeah, I guess the current behavior should perhaps remain for now.

[fi3ework]

Maybe we can add an option in the future to set whether run check sequentially. We can keep the parallel behaviour for now. 😉

[fgblomqvist]

Sounds good. I can make the changes to this branch tomorrow, unless you want to make them yourself sooner than that, up to you.

[fgblomqvist]

Sounds good. I can make the changes to this branch tomorrow, unless you want to make them yourself sooner than that, up to you.

[fi3ework]

CI failed at build step 👀

[fgblomqvist]

Sounds good, thanks for the write-up! Very odd that the build is failing though, it's not even on a line that I touched 🤔

[fgblomqvist]

oooh it was because of a missing semicolon. I can strongly recommend you to add some stricter linting to this project. Semi-colons should be mandatory on all the lines 😅

[fgblomqvist]

I'd suggest you to take a look at https://www.npmjs.com/package/eslint-config-airbnb-base. But either way, this MR should be good now.

[fi3ework]

Yeah, this PR can be merged now. I'll do some more work and then release a version. (still haven't use semantic-release now 😅)

It's because in this line

      })

      // spawn an async runner that we don't wait for in order to avoid blocking the build from continuing in parallel
      (async () => {

There should be a semicolon before (async because it's a new line that starts with ). Non-semi is also acceptable (such as Vite). I'll do some style clean in the following commits and release a new version.

Thanks for your PR! 🤗