-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
feat: add tsx support #96
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @evenstensberg 🤗
Adding this into the middle of the array messes up the test harness. If this should (purposefully) be loaded before babel is attempted, can you please adjust the tests appropriately? This also needs tests 🙏
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@phated PTAL. The tests are passing for me (node v22.3.0)
Would be good to see this merged 🙏 I bumped into this issue again. |
It looks like tsx doesn't run in the entire support matrix so we'll need to add some code to skip it on old node. Non-LTS Node versions are planned to be dropped in the next major. |
No need to wait on me but FYI Im working on latest Node support now and is almost complete. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@phated is there anything in this PR you need me to do? I think the easiest way to implement the skip of a certain node version is to add a case in https://github.com/gulpjs/interpret/blob/master/test/index.js .
@evenstensberg either you can implement the skip or the PR will need to wait until I can find the time to do it. It's easier to find time to review a passing PR than writing/pushing the code myself. |
@phated which node version are you using in development locally? |
#95