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

Update ember-cli-babel #20681

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 19, 2024
Merged

Update ember-cli-babel #20681

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 19, 2024

Conversation

ef4
Copy link
Contributor

@ef4 ef4 commented Apr 19, 2024

ember-cli-babel 8 uses a peerDep on @babel/core, which is why this also adds @babel/core explicitly to dependencies.

This is motivated by my work in the build-reform branch, which wants to rely on the static block support added in ember-cli-babel 8.2.

ember-cli-babel 8 uses a peerDep on @babel/core, which is why this also adds @babel/core explicitly.

This is motivated by my work in the build-reform branch, which wants to rely on the static block support added in ember-cli-babel 8.2.
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@
"unlink:all": "node bin/unlink-all.mjs"
},
"dependencies": {
"@babel/core": "^7.24.4",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do we not need to forward the peer to consumers?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's a choice. We can either have it in dependencies or in peerDependencies. In dependencies is more conservative and non-breaking.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(The path forward to getting rid of all this is when it's a v2 addon it won't try to bring any babel shenanigans at all.)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants