Skip to content
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

Remove command-line program, change to being library-only #1075

Closed
evmar opened this issue Sep 17, 2019 · 11 comments · Fixed by #1082
Closed

Remove command-line program, change to being library-only #1075

evmar opened this issue Sep 17, 2019 · 11 comments · Fixed by #1082
Assignees

Comments

@evmar
Copy link
Contributor

evmar commented Sep 17, 2019

We have a bunch of bugs here that are various forms of "the command-line tsickle program doesn't do what I want". In practice, using tsickle well requires a driver program like the Angular compiler, or maybe https://github.com/theseanl/tscc .

I think we should consider removing our command-line interface entirely and instead say to use one of these other tools. Right now our CLI tempts people into trying it, but it doesn't really work, and we don't have resources to improve it.

@evmar
Copy link
Contributor Author

evmar commented Sep 17, 2019

Assigning to Martin for a decision; I can implement if you think it's right.

@evmar
Copy link
Contributor Author

evmar commented Sep 17, 2019

Some example bugs: #687 #742 #474

@mprobst
Copy link
Contributor

mprobst commented Sep 17, 2019

I'm OK with that.

@evmar
Copy link
Contributor Author

evmar commented Sep 17, 2019

Do you think it's a good idea, though?

@mprobst
Copy link
Contributor

mprobst commented Sep 17, 2019

Yes, I don't think there's value in src/main.ts; it's simply not working, and fixing it is indeed not worth it compared to pointing people to tscc.

@evmar
Copy link
Contributor Author

evmar commented Sep 17, 2019

CC @theseanl

@theseanl
Copy link
Contributor

theseanl commented Sep 18, 2019

I'd be happy to work further on the CLI and getting more feedback. But as I understand, there are some ways to use tsickle via some Bazel rules, why not add pointers to that? It seemed that many build tools opensourced by Google is somehow involved with Bazel, so it seemed to be the "expected" way of using tsickle. Personally I couldn't find a comprehensive documentation on how to use tsickle and closure compiler with Bazel, and I'm eager to learn more about it.

@evmar
Copy link
Contributor Author

evmar commented Sep 18, 2019

@alexeagle is the bazel master. The rules_nodejs (https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_nodejs) project has our integration, but I think it doesn't wrap Closure compiler yet.

@alexeagle
Copy link
Contributor

right, under Bazel we expect that tsc_wrapped will be the driver of the tsickle plugin.

I'm okay with removing the main.

@mprobst
Copy link
Contributor

mprobst commented Sep 19, 2019 via email

@alexeagle
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think our documentation is sufficient, but tsickle is mentioned on https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_nodejs/blob/master/docs/TypeScript.md and that's probably the right spot, unless we add a new high-level doc about Bazel+TS+Closure

evmar added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 27, 2019
This makes it more clear that the main entry point is just a demo.

This also lets us drop a bunch of cruft from the main tsickle
package.json.

Resolves #1075, more or less.
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 a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants