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

Prefer node18 builtin test runner rather than jest #725

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Nov 24, 2022

Conversation

kachick
Copy link
Member

@kachick kachick commented Nov 24, 2022

Revenge of #471

Initially I tried to replace jest with node18 builtin test runner, however it does not care typescript yet. So I have omitted from this PR.

Preparation part of #724

"ts-node": "^10.9.1",
"ts-node-test": "^0.2.0",
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Note for 🇯🇵 kachick/times_kachick#192

@kachick kachick marked this pull request as draft November 24, 2022 07:30
6ff7369
d4610c9

Reverting above. Keeping it makes many vite integration errors in past...
@kachick kachick requested review from a team and pankona and removed request for a team November 24, 2022 07:59
@kachick
Copy link
Member Author

kachick commented Nov 24, 2022

@pankona I'll merge this PR for following task of #724

All existing tests were written by me 😤

@kachick kachick marked this pull request as ready for review November 24, 2022 08:01
@kachick kachick merged commit ef05bd0 into main Nov 24, 2022
@kachick kachick deleted the prefer-node18-builtin-testrunner branch November 24, 2022 08:02
@pankona
Copy link
Member

pankona commented Nov 24, 2022

@kachick Sure, thanks! 😋

kachick added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2022
@kachick kachick mentioned this pull request Nov 25, 2022
@kachick kachick mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2023
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