Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fixes polyfill require for node < v4.0.0 #72

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 18, 2016
Merged

fixes polyfill require for node < v4.0.0 #72

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 18, 2016

Conversation

mdgraser
Copy link
Contributor

Untested.


This change is Reviewable

@justin808
Copy link
Member

@mdgraser This looks sensible. Can you please verify that you tried this with node current as well as node <= 0.12 and less than 4.0.0?

Did you put in some print statements to check the flow of the code?

Thanks!


Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.


Comments from the review on Reviewable.io

@mdgraser
Copy link
Contributor Author

@justin808 Tested this morning in node v0.12.12, v4.2.1, and v5.9.0. All with babel 6 (that's what's in my project). I put console logs in and it works as intended in those cases. The problem now is just that you guys are require.resolving polyfill from two different versions of babel and throwing an error in the catch. So this never actually makes it through that block for any node version < 4.

justin808 added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 18, 2016
fixes polyfill require for node < v4.0.0
@justin808 justin808 merged commit 2a53648 into shakacode:master Mar 18, 2016
@justin808
Copy link
Member

@mdgraser I just pushed 1.0.10. Please try it out. Thanks. Also, can you double check my commit to fix the lint issues? 75702b5

@mdgraser
Copy link
Contributor Author

@justin808 Commit looks good, 1.0.10 works great for me. Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants