Switch to using monorepo #4
Conversation
The files modules shared/ are already laid out well. Putting them in to the same place makes little sense to me.
denizenging
force-pushed
the
sf/monorepo
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c2ebf8d
to
68beb8a
Compare
|
I see all your decisions, here. Good paths and choices are taken imho. Please do not underestimate the "this also should work on browser" thing, specially for the next packages! Overall fine for me... I can actually merge it, so we can move on \o/ |
|
Thanks! I'll also add support for browsers when the time comes, but it seems rather unnecessary to have unused scripts and files for browsers at this very moment, since we don't produce anything for browsers yet. I didn't mention (because I forgot :/), but you can bring the project up using |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't get this. What exactly does it do?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like nothing special. Just related to monorepos.
After countless of hours of research, I think I found the best approach (for me) to implement monorepos using already-available tooling (pnpm in this case).
With this branch, we are now using a much stricter typescript with jest and workspaces support (used to implement the monorepo) along with shared dependencies of the same version (inspired by create-react-app).
I changed a few things that might be controversial. Please comment on them as well. ^^