Async transpiler plugin support #433
Conversation
| @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ export default class CoverageInstrumenterTranspiler implements Transpiler { | |||
| this.log = getLogger(CoverageInstrumenterTranspiler.name); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| transpile(files: File[]): TranspileResult { | |||
| public async transpile(files: File[]): Promise<TranspileResult> { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i think async is not needed here. It is only used to mark methods in which you can use await
| @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ export default class MutantTranspiler { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private transpileMutant(mutant: TestableMutant): Promise<TranspileResult> { | |||
| private async transpileMutant(mutant: TestableMutant): Promise<TranspileResult> { | |||
| @@ -17,11 +17,11 @@ export default class TranspilerFacade implements Transpiler { | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| transpile(files: File[]): TranspileResult { | |||
| public async transpile(files: File[]): Promise<TranspileResult> { | |||
| } catch (error) { | ||
| return this.errorResult(errorToString(error)); | ||
| return Promise.resolve(this.errorResult(errorToString(error))); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We might want to leave the function async because otherwise the two return statements have to be a Promise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is fine as it is. It looks clean in the resulting JavaScript.
|
@simondel it can be merged IMO. What commit message should we use? Strictly speaking its a breaking change, but we could also state that the transpiler api is still experimental (no one is creating stryker transpilers at the moment anyway) @Archcry great job on this PR! |
|
👍 |
|
@Archcry Nice job! |
In order to add webpack support in Stryker, Stryker has to support async transpiler plugins.
This pull-request will: