Ship 1.0 #133

Closed
zpao opened this Issue Dec 18, 2014 · 16 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@zpao
Member

zpao commented Dec 18, 2014

Let's use this to discuss and track what needs to be done so that we can ship 1.0.

  • Figure out versioning scheme
  • Better docs / examples
  • your idea here
@rmosolgo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rmosolgo

rmosolgo Dec 18, 2014

Member

I think getting the UJS just right:

  • Public & exposed at proper namespace (#117)
  • Can mount & unmount with a selector (#91)
  • Detects turbolinks properly (#93)
  • Works with (or disables) turbolinks cache (#89)
  • Responds to correct turbolinks events (ie before-unload if available) (#89)
  • fix turbolinks cache + removing nodes bug #159
  • figure out initializer-related (?) issues
Member

rmosolgo commented Dec 18, 2014

I think getting the UJS just right:

  • Public & exposed at proper namespace (#117)
  • Can mount & unmount with a selector (#91)
  • Detects turbolinks properly (#93)
  • Works with (or disables) turbolinks cache (#89)
  • Responds to correct turbolinks events (ie before-unload if available) (#89)
  • fix turbolinks cache + removing nodes bug #159
  • figure out initializer-related (?) issues
@robrobbins

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robrobbins

robrobbins Dec 18, 2014

Contributor

Chime in on #117 with comments that we want to see for it to go to 1.0 and I'll make sure its ready:

  • If not on the React obj where?
  • I can pull the ref to $ altogether and use native bindings (or not)

I think it was just those 2 outstanding, @zpao may want to chime in on those back on the PR

Contributor

robrobbins commented Dec 18, 2014

Chime in on #117 with comments that we want to see for it to go to 1.0 and I'll make sure its ready:

  • If not on the React obj where?
  • I can pull the ref to $ altogether and use native bindings (or not)

I think it was just those 2 outstanding, @zpao may want to chime in on those back on the PR

@zackify

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zackify

zackify Dec 18, 2014

Fixing some of the limitations noted here would be nice: https://reactjsnews.com/setting-up-rails-for-react-and-jest/

At this point it is possible to create React components by placing them in the components.js file and calling them with react_component 'ComponentName', {props}. in the Rails views. However, there are some limitations. First, it cannot make use of Jest for testing, though Jasmine and full integration tests should work. Second, it is not possible to require() any node packages.

I'm new to Rails and have barely used this gem, sorry if this has been fixed

zackify commented Dec 18, 2014

Fixing some of the limitations noted here would be nice: https://reactjsnews.com/setting-up-rails-for-react-and-jest/

At this point it is possible to create React components by placing them in the components.js file and calling them with react_component 'ComponentName', {props}. in the Rails views. However, there are some limitations. First, it cannot make use of Jest for testing, though Jasmine and full integration tests should work. Second, it is not possible to require() any node packages.

I'm new to Rails and have barely used this gem, sorry if this has been fixed

@rmosolgo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rmosolgo

rmosolgo Dec 18, 2014

Member

I totally agree that react-rails should be require-friendly in one way or another, but I don't think it's a 1.0 blocker. (Maybe that's because I'm making no effort to use require in my app 😛 .)

Member

rmosolgo commented Dec 18, 2014

I totally agree that react-rails should be require-friendly in one way or another, but I don't think it's a 1.0 blocker. (Maybe that's because I'm making no effort to use require in my app 😛 .)

@zpao

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zpao

zpao Dec 18, 2014

Member

I think the require issue is going to be too big to really solve in 1.0. Right now we do things "the rails way" which is to use the asset pipeline and globals (ughh). Jest is also really focused on a particular style that jives well with node (because modules) but not with the asset pipeline.

I would love to see the rails community come to a consensus on using modules and then we can piggyback on that effort.

Member

zpao commented Dec 18, 2014

I think the require issue is going to be too big to really solve in 1.0. Right now we do things "the rails way" which is to use the asset pipeline and globals (ughh). Jest is also really focused on a particular style that jives well with node (because modules) but not with the asset pipeline.

I would love to see the rails community come to a consensus on using modules and then we can piggyback on that effort.

@uberllama

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@uberllama

uberllama Jan 8, 2015

Contributor

Flux. Or Reflux. Please and thank you. ;)

Contributor

uberllama commented Jan 8, 2015

Flux. Or Reflux. Please and thank you. ;)

@rmosolgo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rmosolgo

rmosolgo Mar 30, 2015

Member

@zpao I think we're on the home stretch :D

  • For my part, I'm happy with the docs after #191
  • Last UJS issue is in #221, I'll merge it soon if nobody objects
  • Starting the conversation about versioning in #228

Any other blockers that you know of?

Member

rmosolgo commented Mar 30, 2015

@zpao I think we're on the home stretch :D

  • For my part, I'm happy with the docs after #191
  • Last UJS issue is in #221, I'll merge it soon if nobody objects
  • Starting the conversation about versioning in #228

Any other blockers that you know of?

@zpao

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zpao

zpao Mar 31, 2015

Member

Nah, take us home!

If anything comes up, just bump versions appropriately (I'm much more on board with that approach than I used to be).

Member

zpao commented Mar 31, 2015

Nah, take us home!

If anything comes up, just bump versions appropriately (I'm much more on board with that approach than I used to be).

@rmosolgo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rmosolgo

rmosolgo Apr 6, 2015

Member

@zpao of course there's still a few outstanding issues, but it's good to be 1.0.0 by me, what do you think?

Member

rmosolgo commented Apr 6, 2015

@zpao of course there's still a few outstanding issues, but it's good to be 1.0.0 by me, what do you think?

@zpao

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zpao

zpao Apr 6, 2015

Member

sounds like you've made a ton of progress and it's all your call! :shipit:

Member

zpao commented Apr 6, 2015

sounds like you've made a ton of progress and it's all your call! :shipit:

@chantastic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chantastic

chantastic Apr 7, 2015

Contributor

Great work @rmosolgo!

Contributor

chantastic commented Apr 7, 2015

Great work @rmosolgo!

@rmosolgo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

@rmosolgo rmosolgo closed this Apr 7, 2015

@chantastic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chantastic

chantastic Apr 7, 2015

Contributor

👏 👏 👏

Contributor

chantastic commented Apr 7, 2015

👏 👏 👏

@zackify

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

zackify commented Apr 7, 2015

👍

@jordanstephens

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jordanstephens

jordanstephens Apr 8, 2015

Contributor

🚀

Contributor

jordanstephens commented Apr 8, 2015

🚀

@jakegavin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jakegavin

jakegavin Apr 10, 2015

Contributor

🎊 Nice work!

Contributor

jakegavin commented Apr 10, 2015

🎊 Nice work!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment