fix(gatsby-transformer-sqip): make it work again #14996
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
axe312ger
added
the
status: awaiting reviewer response
axe312ger
changed the title
axe312ger
removed
the
status: awaiting reviewer response
axe312ger
changed the title
axe312ger
changed the title
wardpeet
added
the
status: awaiting reviewer response
freiksenet
approved these changes
Jun 24, 2019
|
Thank you! |
freiksenet
added
the
bot: merge on green
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Issue 1
When sharp & contentful are enabled, gatsby crashes with:
This fixes the issue by using two different names for both SQIP objects
Issue 2
Contentful does not cache sqips in richt folder (
node_modules/.cache/...)Issue 3
In one of the merges in the last PR, one of us added code from the old queueing system.
This lead to broken and/or duplicate SQIP generation 😓
It for sure was because the code was pretty weird, with this and the last PR it should be more maintainable now :)