Migration rxjs 6.0.2 #180
Migration rxjs 6.0.2 #180
Conversation
| "rimraf": "^2.6.2", | ||
| "rxjs": "5.4.2", | ||
| "rxjs": "^6.2.0", | ||
| "rxjs-compat": "^6.2.0", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need rxjs-compat? My understanding ist, that this is only needed for backwards compatibility and the aim of this pull request is to update all rxjs related code to the current version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But there are packages that depend on rxjs<6.0.0 and need rxjs-compat.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Edit: Actually I needed to update my devDependencies as well :/ (angular to ^6)
I just checked it, but it seems the error message only looks like that there is a dependency problem.
The actual problem is, that there is still old rxjs code used:
- Usage of
ErrorObservableinstead ofObservable(https://github.com/ghidoz/angular2-jsonapi/pull/180/files#diff-3109cc626189477fd645f91838ca75c2R323) - Import
Observablefromrxjs/Observableinstead ofrxjs(injson-api.model.ts)
I fixed both points locally and the servetest script runs through. Does it work for you to?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, additionally I had to update the following devDependencies:
"@angular/animations": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/common": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/compiler": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/compiler-cli": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/core": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/platform-browser": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/platform-browser-dynamic": "^6.0.4",
"@angular/platform-server": "^6.0.4",
...
"codelyzer": "~4.2.1",
....
"typescript": "2.7.2",
....
"zone.js": "^0.8.26"
@safo6m: Would it make sense to do this in this pull request (as rxjs 6.x is only usable in angular 6+)?
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| it ('should to rollback to the initial author name', () => { | ||
| author.rollbackAttributes(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't the authors name be changed before you roll it back? Otherwise you do not test if the author name is really rolled back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hpawe01 No, we shouldn't because it's in the same scope and every change we do on the author object affects on every it() in this describe().
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of course, you are right. Sorry, missed that.
| private toQueryString: Function = this.datastoreConfig.overrides | ||
| && this.datastoreConfig.overrides.toQueryString ? | ||
| this.datastoreConfig.overrides.toQueryString : this._toQueryString; | ||
| && this.datastoreConfig.overrides.toQueryString ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should use a consistent style, so maybe you could undo the removing of the indention here?
4 participants
No description provided.