Skip to content

Conversation

@benjaminforras
Copy link

Neccessary when using with Angular 6

Neccessary when using with Angular 6
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented May 7, 2018

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@gjdev
Copy link
Member

gjdev commented May 7, 2018

High TryHardHood, thank you for your contribution!
It looks like the changes to bundle/package-lock.json are not really needed for compatibility with RXJS 6 (?). If you could remove the changes to the package-lock.json from your PR, I would be glad too merge the rest of the PR.

Thanks again!

Copy link
Author

@benjaminforras benjaminforras left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reverted package-lock.json

@gjdev gjdev added this to the at2 milestone May 8, 2018
@gjdev
Copy link
Member

gjdev commented May 8, 2018

I've tested this PR with angular 5.2.10 and rxjs 5.5.5. Regretfully this pulls in almost all of rxjs (193kb instead of 49kb without this change) on webpack builds, even with three shaking enabled. It seems that with rxjs 5 the webpack toolchain is not able to treeshake the changed import statements. So for now, as is, this blocks us from merging the change.

We are in the proces of updating the material-components dependency to the latest version. After that I will retest with angular 6 and RXJS 6. If that results in smaller RXJS sizes, I will merge anyway, and document this as a reason to upgrade Angular & RXJS for our users.

@gjdev
Copy link
Member

gjdev commented May 14, 2018

@TryHardDood I have applied the changes in #611. (Due to conflicts and the removal of your fork, I could net get this PR merged, so created a new one)

@gjdev gjdev closed this May 14, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants