Moving to TS

[elazarcoh]

Rewrite the extension in TS.
It's still a work in progress.

• setup TS
• make minimal changes to make it compile with TS
  • verify it works the same

[alkatar21]

I would suggest moving the refactoring to one or more separate PRs for traceability later?

[alkatar21]

Another suggestion from me would be to comment in the first line when something was generated and with which tool. Just for the traceability again.

[elazarcoh]

Another suggestion from me would be to comment in the first line when something was generated and with which tool. Just for the traceability again.

Not sure I'm following.
For now, only the config was auto generated. I intended it to be a one-time thing, not as part of the build pipeline.
It was more due to my laziness (🙃) of manually coping the configurations, rather than a sophisticated method to auto-generate code from the package.json...

It is possible to auto-generate it as part of the build pipeline, if we want to (in fact, I wrote a tool that does just that, just the other way around: TS -> package.json:contributions.configuration).

For now, we should continue to monitor any changes to the configuration section in the package.json, and update the TS config accordingly. If you see anything else missing, just let me know. Or better, create a PR to fix it (if possible, maybe to my fork?).

[alkatar21]

I did not mean it that way.
I guess config.ts and config-utils.ts are generated? My idea is to just put it in the first line as a comment, because at least for me it was unclear in the first moment how you came up with config-utils.ts.
I don't think it should be part of a pipline.

If you see anything else missing, just let me know. Or better, create a PR to fix it (if possible, maybe to my fork?).

Currently I'm waiting for all current PRs to be merged. After that I would set it up for me and try things out.

[elazarcoh]

I see.
I'm not sure considering it "auto-generated" is correct, if it's a one time, and passed a manual review.
In any case, the config.ts was auto-generated, and then modified manually (because it didn't get everything right).
For the config-utils.ts, I agree that I need to add some comments there. Probably, it would be clearer if I just create a concrete Configuration class, rather then using generic code (as it is now). I copied it from my previously mentioned tool.

Currently I'm waiting for all current PRs to be merged. After that I would set it up for me and try things out.

OK. don't wait for #45 though. I'll rewrite it with TS.

[alkatar21]

For the config-utils.ts, I agree that I need to add some comments there. Probably, it would be clearer if I just create a concrete Configuration class, rather then using generic code (as it is now). I copied it from my previously mentioned tool.

Then that would be fine for me. I don't care whether it's Generic or not, but it's currently not obvious to me what's happening and why. I would find it useful to improve that.

[elazarcoh]

Hi, getting back to this. So, I tested it on my machine and it works well. But I think it's better to have someone else test it as well. If anyone is willing, we can continue discussing it here for any bug or issue until we'll see it has none.

[alkatar21]

@elazarcoh As some PRs got merged this maybe needs some updates too?

[elazarcoh]

@elazarcoh As some PRs got merged this maybe needs some updates too?

Done.
Do we want to merge it like this, without further testing? Maybe we can make a pre-release version for testing? @jgclark what do you think?