docs: add explanation for supportsStaticESM transform option
#12028
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #12028 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 68.77% 68.77%
=======================================
Files 324 324
Lines 16670 16670
Branches 4814 4814
=======================================
Hits 11465 11465
Misses 5172 5172
Partials 33 33 Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Should we link to https://jestjs.io/docs/ecmascript-modules? The point is "ESM must be active" and I think those docs describe it quite well? Not sure 🙂 |
I added |
docs/CodeTransformation.md
Outdated
| /** | ||
| * The value is: | ||
| * - `false` if Jest runs without Node ESM flag `--experimental-vm-modules` | ||
| * - `true` if the file extension is defined in [extensionsToTreatAsEsm](https://jestjs.io/docs/next/configuration#extensionstotreatasesm-arraystring) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hard coding a version will break when we roll new versions. Should use a relative link
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I hope I put the correct one now.
docs/CodeTransformation.md
Outdated
| * - `true` if the file extension is defined in [extensionsToTreatAsEsm](Configuration.md#extensionstotreatasesm-arraystring) | ||
| * and Jest runs with Node ESM flag `--experimental-vm-modules` | ||
| * | ||
| * See more at https://jestjs.io/docs/next/ecmascript-modules |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These would then be wrong when rolling a new version of the docs. Are we able to make docusaurus generate this link (i.e. use relative link within the source code)?
/cc @slorber
|
@ahnpnl could you rebase this? I'm fine with the link being outdated in newer docs 🙂 |
|
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Summary
Closes #12021
Test plan
Start local doc server and go to http://localhost:3000/docs/code-transformation