feat(build): Ignore compiled sass/less files from git #1592

merged 3 commits into from Oct 29, 2016


None yet

2 participants


Compiling sass/less files to <module>/client/css directory makes it difficult to differentiate between compiled and raw css files.

By compiling them to appropriate directories, compiled files can be easily ignored.

shanavas786 added some commits Oct 23, 2016
@shanavas786 shanavas786 Compile sass/less files to appropriate directories 2369029
@shanavas786 shanavas786 Include compiled sass/less files in asset 1554658
@shanavas786 shanavas786 Ignore compiled sass/less files
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ module.exports = {
tests: ['public/lib/angular-mocks/angular-mocks.js']
css: [
- 'modules/*/client/css/*.css'
+ 'modules/*/client/{css,less,scss}/*.css'
mleanos Oct 23, 2016 Member

How does this affect the less & sass settings below?

@@ -169,9 +169,6 @@ gulp.task('sass', function () {
return gulp.src(defaultAssets.client.sass)
- .pipe(plugins.rename(function (file) {
mleanos Oct 23, 2016 Member

Why was this removed?


@mleanos Now, both less and sass files are compiled to module/client/css/ directory [1], [2],
and only css files in module/client/css/ directory is used as css assets [3].

My proposal is to compile sass/less files to module/client/(sass/less) directory itself instead of css directory (that is why directory rename is removed) and include css files from those directories also in css assets (add scss/less directories to css asset path).

mleanos commented Oct 25, 2016

@shanavas786 Thank you. That perfectly answered my questions. Also, I agree with the goals of these changes. It's definitely gonna be easier to manage these compiled assets.

@meanjs/contributors comments?


LGTM. I haven't tested though, but the changes seem pretty straight forward.

@mleanos mleanos self-assigned this Oct 25, 2016
@mleanos mleanos added this to the 0.6.0 milestone Oct 29, 2016
@mleanos mleanos merged commit d47dd41 into meanjs:master Oct 29, 2016

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 72.735%
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment