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

Consider splitting off tests/utils into own package #81

Closed
MasterOdin opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Consider splitting off tests/utils into own package #81

MasterOdin opened this issue Feb 19, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@MasterOdin
Copy link
Contributor

In v2.0.1, when the tests were converted to typescript, ts-jest was also introduced as a dependency. However, now, when installing this package (or more likely ibm-watson) will show the following error message:

$ npm install
npm WARN ts-jest@24.3.0 requires a peer of jest@>=24 <25 but none is installed. You must install peer dependencies yourself.

which can be confusing / annoying to end-users to see.

Given that the test utilities exists to provide functionality to downstream modules, and not even to the node-sdk-core itself, it may be good to split it apart into its own publish package which those downstream consumers can still import it as necessary for their testing, but it does not get dragged into production code of external users.

@dpopp07
Copy link
Member

dpopp07 commented Feb 19, 2020

@MasterOdin Thanks for the issue. I agree, that's pretty annoying. I would prefer to not have to create another package (although that seems like the best solution) so I will try and think about how we might handle this. That said, I don't know how quickly I'll be able to act on this in the midst of other priorities

@dpopp07
Copy link
Member

dpopp07 commented Jul 17, 2020

@MasterOdin I finally got some time to look at this and thought of a solution to keep the utilities in this package and get rid of the annoying issues around them.

This is in #101, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

@dpopp07
Copy link
Member

dpopp07 commented Jul 23, 2020

While I know you probably still support doing this long term, I'm going to close this issue for now since the underlying problem has been addressed

@dpopp07 dpopp07 closed this as completed Jul 23, 2020
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

2 participants