(fix): correctly read tsconfig esModuleInterop#555
(fix): correctly read tsconfig esModuleInterop#555agilgur5 merged 1 commit intojaredpalmer:masterfrom
Conversation
- it's a property of compilerOptions, not of overall tsconfig
- i.e. tsconfig.compilerOptions.esModuleInterop
- because this was incorrectly read, Rollup's esModule would always
be set to `undefined`, and Rollup would then default to `true`
- so esModuleInterop still wasn't being respected properly, I just
shifted the defaults when I incorrectly patched this :/
(test): add tests for the default tsconfig as well as for when it's
explicitly set to false
agilgur5
force-pushed
the
fix-esmodule-undefined
branch
from
deeb4fe to
3bdaca7
Compare
|
Ok, so the test failures are very weird, because it even got Like No one has complained about it being wrong since #367, nay, I even tested and use this in my own libraries... And I just manually confirmed the output is correct again in the default and This might just be an artifact with how Jest loads these things 😕 🤷♂ |
agilgur5
left a comment
agilgur5
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Other than the weird test failures that were happening before, LGTM
- it's a property of compilerOptions, not of overall tsconfig
- i.e. tsconfig.compilerOptions.esModuleInterop
- because this was incorrectly read, Rollup's esModule would always
be set to `undefined`, and Rollup would then default to `true`
- so esModuleInterop still wasn't being respected properly, I just
shifted the defaults when I incorrectly patched this :/
(test): add tests for the default tsconfig as well as for when it's
explicitly set to false
1 participant
it's a property of compilerOptions, not of overall tsconfig
because this was incorrectly read, Rollup's esModule would always
be set to
undefined, and Rollup would then default totrueshifted the defaults when I incorrectly patched this :/
(test): add tests for the default tsconfig as well as for when it's
explicitly set to false
Fixes #469 . Actually this was unintentionally fixed by me a short while ago when I updated #489 , but this improves the syntax and adds tests
This is a follow-up on bugs in #327