-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
Invite to port to official nodejs/userland-migrations #2
Comments
That sounds interesting! Would I be able to use the TypeScript compiler API? Are there any other restrictions I should know about? Can I still keep this package and make it run codemod underneath? |
Sure 🙂
The main thing I can think of is around code quality: it has to have unit and end-to-end tests. CI may require node's test runner for those, I'd have to look (happy to help port if needed). And I suppose we would frown upon a dubious dependency.
You could separate the codemod layer, sure. I would suggest that regardless. That's what I did for |
Could I keep the migrations' brains in this package here and use them from the package in your repo? I see that Or I could add 2 packages there, 1 for the brains and 1 for the codemod integration. |
No, definitely not. We would be certifying to the ecosystem that the migration is trusted. We cannot do that when it can be changed without re-certification. You can also publish it to the registry as an unofficial and untrusted migration.
You don't have to use workflow (and in fact, they are refactoring it); they do encourage use of
I definitely understand and encourage that 🙂
I'm not sure what this means / entails. |
Thanks for the answers to my questions. I think my lack of codemod experience is hindering my understanding a bit. I've opened nodejs/userland-migrations#21 to discuss this further. |
Hiya @nicojs!
I'm the lead for node's userland-migrations team (https://github.com/nodejs/userland-migrations) where we publish exactly this sort of thing. Would you like to port this there? It would then be listed in the official registry, and we can help with getting it in users hands 🙂 You would of course retain full authorship (you'll be listed as the author, etc in the registry).
I see you have a use-case in your list to potentially support: We've got specifier correction covered (
correct-ts-specifiers
).The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: