fix: refactor file watchers (chokidar/linux workaround) #4950
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
pi0
previously approved these changes
Feb 5, 2019
|
@pimlie Would you please fix the CI? |
Atinux
previously approved these changes
Feb 6, 2019
…/pimlie/nuxt.js into fix-chokidar-workaround-refactor
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #4950 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 92.78% 92.87% +0.09%
==========================================
Files 73 73
Lines 2426 2429 +3
Branches 596 596
==========================================
+ Hits 2251 2256 +5
+ Misses 160 158 -2
Partials 15 15
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
manniL
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2019
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Types of changes
Description
When the previous pr (#4717) got merged pi0 commented 'For experiment' (i think we discussed it on discord as well), but since that code actually got released in 2.4 its time to refactor/cleanup it a bit so (mainly) the
fileswatcher also benefit from the workaround.I'd prefer to move the
createFileWatchermethod from the Builder class to some util file (and pass this.options.watchers as an argument), but I was not sure what the best place would be. A util file in the builder package or a filewatcher file in util package? Or just keep it as a class member?(I will fix the tests once the above has been discussed)
Checklist: