Skip to content

[WIP] [Feature] instance-initializer blueprint for module unification#16491

Closed
lbeauvilliers wants to merge 6 commits intoemberjs:masterfrom
lbeauvilliers:lbeauvilliers/mu-instance-initializer-blueprint
Closed

[WIP] [Feature] instance-initializer blueprint for module unification#16491
lbeauvilliers wants to merge 6 commits intoemberjs:masterfrom
lbeauvilliers:lbeauvilliers/mu-instance-initializer-blueprint

Conversation

@lbeauvilliers
Copy link

@lbeauvilliers lbeauvilliers commented Apr 11, 2018

To Do:

  • Get the import statements generating correctly for the in-app case
  • Write tests for the in-addon case
  • Update instance-initializer-test-test.js

<orderEntry type="inheritedJdk" />
<orderEntry type="sourceFolder" forTests="false" />
</component>
</module> No newline at end of file
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

can you ⚡ these files (and perhaps add .idea/ to .gitignore)?

);

expect(_file('src/instance-initializers/foo-test.js')).to.contain(
"import { initialize } from 'my-app/instance-initializers/foo';"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this will have to change to point to the new path under src

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @GavinJoyce, changed that--now trying to figure out how to get the tests actually passing!

When I have this worked out, I'll move onto the addon case, then update instance-initializer-test-test.

@GavinJoyce
Copy link
Member

We'll also need to add tests to instance-initializer-test-test.js to ensure that we're generating co-located tests.

I added a similar comment here, it looks like we'll have to make a change in https://github.com/ember-cli/ember-load-initializers to allow tests to be co-located

@GavinJoyce
Copy link
Member

@lbeauvilliers ^ that's been resolved, perhaps you could rebase?

Also, could you add an in-repo-addon test similar to this? This will ensure that we're not breaking existing functionality.

LMK if you'd like to pair on this sometime

@GavinJoyce
Copy link
Member

If anyone wants to pick this PR up, please do so

@ppcano
Copy link
Contributor

ppcano commented Nov 28, 2018

Can be closed by #17235

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.

4 participants