-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
Conversation
9558483
to
c85421d
Compare
0c13068
to
ed5b349
Compare
content += '\n//# sourceMappingURL=data:application/json;base64,' + | ||
new Buffer(output.sourceMap.toString()).toString('base64'); | ||
} | ||
return wrapPromise(content); |
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.
You can just do Promise.resolve(content)
here.
👍 perhaps just |
Yeah, makes the tests for #58 easier too.. Was originally intending to send to standard output for CLI usage, hence the inline-ing, but would need to disable all the other logging though, so perhaps reserve a flag for that. Not sure if people would actually want to use it this way though. |
Ok great. Yeah CLI streaming can be implemented if and when there is demand, happy to leave it out for now. |
Points addressed, let me know if I should squash |
Awesome, thanks. Are the source maps looking like they're working? |
Looking good for non-chained. Will squash get this merged, look at the chaining in #64 |
9d67e15
to
386226a
Compare
@guybedford let me know if you're happy with this approach, most notably the API (return file-contents string within promise).
Perhaps a stream is more suitable, and I'm not sure what was meant by "memory FS". Looked at things like https://github.com/tschaub/mock-fs, but that sort of evil seems doesn't seem to belong outside of testing, and not sure the value it would add in the scenario vs return an inlined-file or a dictionary of the separate files.
Need to hook up Uglify for in-memory usage, and refactor my goop (been a while, JavaScript)
Closes #54