revert extensionless codebase #363
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Turns out there are major drawbacks in the previous change.
Let that be a warning to the next person that is trying to simplify things in the JS world in the current times: DON'T!
TSC doesn't "support" having extension-less imports when compiling a module, they refuse to make the right links, this only works with commonjs. Jest in the other hand doesn't fully support this approach so we'll have to keep building files before testing or try some experimental solutions meanwhile.
IMHO ideally we should stick to basic commonjs modules and wait until the ecosystem is more developed towards modules. Reverting to commonjs may not be worth the trouble right now so we just keep things going as they are.