Conversation
The vendoring still had two issues. 1. Updated dev dependencies should also run the vendoring, since these may change how the bundle is minified. This is not taken into account. 2. The artificat generated was added to the repository. That way we actually also added the patch file itself to the repository. That works once, while creating the second patch would not conflict. This is fixed by generating the file outside of the repository and only applying ./vendor as patch. The patch file is now ignored, to further mitigate the risk for this to happen again in case the code is refactored,
Overall package sizeSelf size: 4.45 MB Dependency sizes| name | version | self size | total size | |------|---------|-----------|------------| | import-in-the-middle | 2.0.3 | 76.87 kB | 808.03 kB | | dc-polyfill | 0.1.10 | 26.73 kB | 26.73 kB |🤖 This report was automatically generated by heaviest-objects-in-the-universe |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #7328 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 84.91% 86.06% +1.14%
==========================================
Files 515 515
Lines 22221 22221
==========================================
+ Hits 18870 19125 +255
+ Misses 3351 3096 -255 Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
BenchmarksBenchmark execution time: 2026-01-26 12:08:37 Comparing candidate commit 4aaf00b in PR branch Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 230 metrics, 30 unstable metrics. |
|
The vendoring still had two issues. 1. Updated dev dependencies should also run the vendoring, since these may change how the bundle is minified. This is not taken into account. 2. The artifact generated was added to the repository. That way we actually also added the patch file itself to the repository. That works once, while creating the second patch would not conflict. This is fixed by generating the file outside of the repository and only applying ./vendor as patch. The patch file is now ignored, to further mitigate the risk for this to happen again in case the code is refactored, * chore: fix type error and improve error output while bundling
The vendoring still had two issues. 1. Updated dev dependencies should also run the vendoring, since these may change how the bundle is minified. This is not taken into account. 2. The artifact generated was added to the repository. That way we actually also added the patch file itself to the repository. That works once, while creating the second patch would not conflict. This is fixed by generating the file outside of the repository and only applying ./vendor as patch. The patch file is now ignored, to further mitigate the risk for this to happen again in case the code is refactored, * chore: fix type error and improve error output while bundling
The vendoring still had two issues. 1. Updated dev dependencies should also run the vendoring, since these may change how the bundle is minified. This is not taken into account. 2. The artifact generated was added to the repository. That way we actually also added the patch file itself to the repository. That works once, while creating the second patch would not conflict. This is fixed by generating the file outside of the repository and only applying ./vendor as patch. The patch file is now ignored, to further mitigate the risk for this to happen again in case the code is refactored, * chore: fix type error and improve error output while bundling
The vendoring still had two issues.
these may change how the bundle is minified. This is not taken
into account.
we actually also added the patch file itself to the repository.
That works once, while creating the second patch would not
conflict. This is fixed by generating the file outside of the
repository and only applying ./vendor as patch.
The patch file is now ignored, to further mitigate the risk for
this to happen again in case the code is refactored,