Skip to content

Removing subprocess.#499

Closed
stelcheck wants to merge 1 commit into
TypeStrong:masterfrom
stelcheck:chores/remove-spawn
Closed

Removing subprocess.#499
stelcheck wants to merge 1 commit into
TypeStrong:masterfrom
stelcheck:chores/remove-spawn

Conversation

@stelcheck
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@stelcheck stelcheck commented Dec 20, 2017 •
edited
Loading

This commit:

  1. Cleans up how the code is loaded
  2. Removes the necessity to use 'spawn'

Replaces #476
Replaces #489

Fixes #459
Fixes #471
Fixes #480
Fixes #487
Fixes #498

(phew - hope I don't forget anyone!)
@stelcheck
Removing subprocess.
b7d4312 
This commit:

  1. Cleans up how the code is loaded
  2. Removes the necessity to use 'spawn'

Replaces TypeStrong#476
Replaces TypeStrong#489
This was referenced Dec 20, 2017
Closed
Closed
@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coveralls commented Dec 20, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.7%) to 76.75% when pulling b7d4312 on stelcheck:chores/remove-spawn into 129153f on TypeStrong:master.
1 similar comment
@coveralls
Copy link
Copy Markdown

coveralls commented Dec 20, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Coverage Status

Coverage decreased (-0.7%) to 76.75% when pulling b7d4312 on stelcheck:chores/remove-spawn into 129153f on TypeStrong:master.
@stelcheck stelcheck mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2017
Closed
@stelcheck
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

stelcheck commented Dec 20, 2017

One question: I expect that the way I extract flags from minimist that there could be collisions between userland flags and ts-node flags.
@blakeembrey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

blakeembrey commented Dec 23, 2017

@stelcheck I think I'm missing something here. How are you using the node.js flags?
@blakeembrey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

blakeembrey commented Dec 23, 2017

For reference, it seems like this is undoing #131?
@stelcheck
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

stelcheck commented Dec 23, 2017

Right... I was thinking they would get applied, but you are right.

I guess we have two options:

  1. Revert to a wrapper not written in Node
  2. Direct users to use NODE_OPTIONS

The first option would be tricky to implement properly I think, so I am trying to implement tjis without a wrapper. What is you take on it?
@blakeembrey
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

blakeembrey commented Feb 19, 2018

Thanks for your patience. Finally got around to this and closing with #536.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

3 participants

@stelcheck @coveralls @blakeembrey