Skip to content

Fixes #17 - Support for Monorepos using Yarn Workspaces #18

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

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

danwetherald
Copy link
Contributor

I took a look how the path is defined when sourcing the binaries and this seems to keep looking up until the node_modules directory is found that also includes a bs-platform directory.

Let me know if anyone sees any issues with this, I tried this both on a monorepo project and a traditional project and it seems to work for both projects.

@ryyppy
Copy link
Member

ryyppy commented Dec 17, 2020

interesting, will need to try that. do you have any public yarn workspaces / rescript repo where I can test this myself?

@danwetherald
Copy link
Contributor Author

I do not have any public repos using yarn workspaces, but I can certainly create an example repo if need be.

Let me know if that is something you would like me to do for testing purposes.

@ryyppy
Copy link
Member

ryyppy commented Dec 17, 2020

yeah, maybe create an examples/monorepo folder within this PR so we can keep it around for integration testing later on?

@danwetherald
Copy link
Contributor Author

Just pushed up a quick and simple example for a monorepo @ryyppy - Let me know if this helps.

$ cd examples/monorepo

$ yarn install (this is done in the root dir

$ cd awesomeness
$ yarn re:clean && yarn re:watch

$ cd app
$ yarn re:clean && yarn re:watch
$ yarn start

@ryyppy
Copy link
Member

ryyppy commented Dec 18, 2020

Thanks.

I needed to simplify your example and add some other stuff, so I will close this PR in favour of #19

@danwetherald
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks.

I needed to simplify your example and add some other stuff, so I will close this PR in favour of #19

Sounds good.

@ryyppy
Copy link
Member

ryyppy commented Dec 18, 2020

@dan003400 We still need to coordinate with Bob if this is the correct way to detect tooling from a compiler perspective. For now we will keep the aforementioned PR (#19) in a draft state.

Closing this PR.

@ryyppy ryyppy closed this Dec 18, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants