aurelia/Discuss

Aurelia 1.x Q&A - Sandbox at https://codesandbox.io/s/aurelia-javascript-sandbox-jnl6q85zq5

José A. Sachs

@jhewt

Indeed, "lite"

Dwayne Charrington

@Vheissu

@tomasbillborn I created a Sass one which hasn't been released yet, planning on getting to a Stylus and Less one tonight probably.

Also wanting to add in support for Autoprefixer as well.

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

Thats great, I would actually rather just go webpack as it is, but documentation on how to actually implement it feel like it is minimal atm

Dwayne Charrington

@Vheissu

That's the great thing about what @niieani started with Easy Webpack, lots of configurations for Webpack projects without needing to pull your hair out. Webpack has quite a steep learning curve when you start getting knee-deep into it.

Roland Quast

@rquast

that new skeleton looks pretty good

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

Well I had no problem before this release, I think some parts of it seem great, but I rather have a "normal" implementation of webpack

Roland Quast

@rquast

easy webpack a great idea

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

If I would need to implement a { less } loader its there, I dont wanna have to hack into the setup and have "some easy-webpack" and some regular webpack

Dwayne Charrington

@Vheissu

You can define your own loaders inside of the config without using Easy Webpack as well.

Until my copy files plugin contribution is released I have this:

      (function() {
        return {
          plugins: [
            new CopyWebpackPlugin([{
              from: 'src/assets/images',
              to: 'images'
            }])
          ]
        }
      })()

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

Well then we are back to minimal documenation and me sitting and reading your repo code : )

Roland Quast

@rquast

I don't think anything is easy when it comes to build scripts... webpack included

Dwayne Charrington

@Vheissu

This is my Sass one (still not perfect though, CSS is still inlined):

      (function () {
        const extractCss = { filename: '[name].css', allChunks: false, sourceMap: false };
        const extractCSSinstance = extractCss ? new ExtractTextPlugin(extractCss.filename || '[name].css', extractCss) : null;

        let config = {
          module: {
            loaders: get(this, 'module.loaders', []).concat([{
              test: /\.scss$/i,
              loaders: extractCss ? extractCSSinstance.extract('style', ['css', 'postcss', 'sass']) : ['style', 'css', 'postcss', 'sass']
            }])
          }
        };

        return config;
      })(),

Roland Quast

@rquast

but that easy webpack should be good at least for a template of how things are done

and you can fork if you want to keep track of changes

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

I appreciate your help and what you are doing, but I am having a hardtime to see why I need to reinvent the wheel, there is a loader for less and webpack already

Dwayne Charrington

@Vheissu

Easy Webpack doesn't change anything, the syntax for defining loaders and whatnot remains the same. You just use it within the confines of the plugin now.

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

With this i have to write an extra config for each loader

Dwayne Charrington

@Vheissu

The above is no different than how you normally define a loader. The one difference being you register it with the generateConfig function. The configs are just wrapped in functions now.

Roland Quast

@rquast

I dunno.. easy-webpack makes a lot of sense to me. It's not reinventing the wheel if it consolidates config that can normally be spread across a webpack config file.

maybe it's just inappropriately named.. maybe should be something like "cleanly-organised-webpack".

Tomas Billborn

@tomasbillborn

Before I had simply to define the less loader in the module.loader for it to work now I have to define it through a function or a new file exporting a module. Not saying easy-webpack is bad because I havent evaluated it enough, simply I think it hads complexity

adds*

Hopefully I am proven wrong, atm it just not super clear how to do things that before could be implemented pretty easy

Roland Quast

@rquast

to me it looks similar to what you get in configuration files for apache etc... all broken up into configuration parts

and I think in the long run, aurelia cli should generate the webpack config and give you the choice of a simple config or an easy-webpack layout

(as one of the options, other than the aurelia cli loader)

kevmeister68

@kevmeister68

Why do we need so many loaders - in what area do they tend to differ (coming from someone with little knowledge in this area -- yet)?

Randy Vroegop

@vroegop

I have a question about the fetch client and cookies; using the following code my cookies are not set in the request:

    document.cookie = "username=John Doe";

    this.http.fetch('http://localhost:9100/login', {
      method: 'post',
      body: json({username: "test", password: "pass1"})
    })

Roland Quast

@rquast

@kevmeister68 because nothing is perfect (yet)

José A. Sachs

@jhewt

@rjpvroegop use config.useStandardConfiguration()

Randy Vroegop

@vroegop

@jhewt where would one do that? In main.js I have aurelia.use.standardConfiguration(), did you mean that?

José A. Sachs

@jhewt

@rjpvroegop In your constructor, where you are injected the fetch library

constructor(http, ea) {
    http.configure(config => {
        config
            .useStandardConfiguration();
    })
    this.http = http;
}

sorry about that "ea", that's the EventAggregator I'm using in my services

is too long to write it over and over :D

Randy Vroegop

@vroegop

Thank you trying that now :)

José A. Sachs

@jhewt

@rjpvroegop Check out the HUB docs for fetch, may help a lot http://aurelia.io/hub.html#/doc/article/aurelia/fetch-client/latest/http-services/2

Gregory Bouteiller

@gbouteiller

Hello, has someone tried to use rollup to bundle aurelia code?

Randy Vroegop

@vroegop

@jhewt Setting the configuration did not work on its own, I've used the credentials: 'include' in my header and allow that in my access header on the API. Thank you anyways for poining in a direction :D

Bazyli Brzóska

@niieani

@Vheissu @tomasbillborn @rquast actually generateConfig of easy-webpack can take in either a function or a simple object. For simple configs an object is enough, whether you want to manually override some elements or append to certain arrays (e.g. the plugin array). The default behavior is to deep merge objects, append values to arrays and in all other cases overwrite the old values. The function approach allows for more fine grained changes like prepending arrays, or using previously generated config as input for the generated output. Last config is available as this inside the function.

Roland Quast

@rquast

@niieani nice... so "this" mean's there's no issue then. ;)

Theodar Sundeep Kumar

@theodarsundeep

@millicandavid Thanks I was using the Visual Studio 2015 and have my issue fixed and was able to run the Aurelia RC ussing the CLI.

@EisenbergEffect Aurelia Interface looks promising , cant wait to get my hands dirty. Thanks !!

José A. Sachs

@jhewt

We only hope that isn't that expensive tho

Ricky Blankenaufulland

@ZoolWay

Got a problem with badkeyerror in dependency injection . Message is "key/value cannot be null or undefined. Are you trying to inject/register something that doesn't exist with DI?". Funny thing is another component already retrieved that type so it must exist with DI. Tried autoinject and inject, both do not work.

Philipp Knecht

@fopsdev

anybody worling with sublime typescript here?

working

Thomas Schlage

@fragsalat

Hey guys. Does someone have experiences with native web components in aurelia? I've the problem that binding to the value property of the class is not working.
Listening for events does work great.

Philipp Knecht

@fopsdev

i just cant make sublime typescript picking up ntsc instead of tsc.

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity