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

RactiveJS and SystemJS 0.11.2 - Module process not declared as a dependency #322

Closed
victorwpbastos opened this issue Jan 16, 2015 · 12 comments

Comments

@victorwpbastos
Copy link

After the last update my app stop running:

image

When I downgrade to version 0.11.1 all back to normal.

@wildlyinaccurate
Copy link

Just stumbled across this error as well. Works fine with 0.11.1.

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

Thanks, this is due to 3bfddd8.

@theefer it seems like reverting to tokenizing may be the way to go with the rules at this level as this is caused by string characters in regular expressions causing invalid string removal.

For now we should probably revert the change, and then work on a tokenizer for the next release.

@theefer
Copy link
Contributor

theefer commented Jan 18, 2015

Sounds fair. Regexp only get us so far.

Will the tokeniser run in all cases, or do you want to start the work to
pre process deps for all cases except dev?

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

The tokenizer will just run in browser in dev, to avoid a full syntax parser. Builds use their own parsing process - https://github.com/systemjs/builder/blob/master/compilers/cjs.js.

@theefer
Copy link
Contributor

theefer commented Jan 18, 2015

OK. Are you thinking of using esprima, or another parser?

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

I was thinking simple tokenizing like in

function removeComments(str) {
.

@theefer
Copy link
Contributor

theefer commented Jan 18, 2015

Ah yes that'd work. Plus I realised today stable esprima doesn't support much of ES6 :-(

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

An alternative would be to just use Traceur for CommonJS as well actually, but I'm hesitant.

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

Fixed and published the reversion for this as 0.11.3.

@theefer
Copy link
Contributor

theefer commented Jan 19, 2015

Should the bug whose fix broke this and got reverted be reopened?

@guybedford
Copy link
Member

@theefer yes, we can reopen the issue.

@theefer
Copy link
Contributor

theefer commented Jan 19, 2015

It's #311 but I don't have the rights to reopen.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants