Feat/enforce custom provider type #25
Conversation
|
@thiagomini I took the liberty to add a test case for where we alias |
|
That's awesome, @tolgap , your help is very much appreciated! Thanks for contributing to our cause 🙌 |
…IO/eslint-plugin into feat/enforce-custom-provider-type
| ); | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
| 'Identifier[typeAnnotation.typeAnnotation.type="TSTypeReference"]': ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this also capture providers inside @Module({ providers: [] })
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good question Rick, I don't think so haha I'll have to create another test for that
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this is now fixed, @tuxmachine , could you look at the tests and see if I'm missing something? thanks!
tolgap
left a comment
tolgap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is looking great @thiagomini 🔥 great work.
| import { Module } from '@nestjs/common'; | ||
| import { SomeClass } from './some-class'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you indent these new scenarios a bit less? 🙂
| import { Module } from '@nestjs/common'; | ||
| import { SomeClass } from './some-class'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you indent these new scenarios a bit less? 🙂
| import { Module } from '@nestjs/common'; | ||
| import { SomeClass } from './some-class'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you indent these new scenarios a bit less? 🙂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we symlink to the .node-version file instead? nvm is pretty much the only version manager that won't support that filename. nvm-sh/nvm#794 (comment)
package.json
Outdated
| ], | ||
| "engines": { | ||
| "node": ">=20.9.0", | ||
| "node": ">=20.11.1", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have to require such a high version number just for using this package? Because this will generate warnings for whoever is using the package.
Nest is at >=16 btw
tolgap
left a comment
tolgap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM! Great work @thiagomini . I do agree with the engines.node setting being too strict 😄. Would stop a lot of users of using this package.
Closes #24
This is still a WIP. We need additional test cases and cover scenarios where we rename the
Providertype