Skip to content

Conversation

@devversion
Copy link
Member

@devversion devversion commented Sep 1, 2019

Implements a custom bazel dev-server rule that can be exposed eventually. The reason
we need a custom dev-server implementation is that the "ts_devserver" is not flexible
and needs to be synced into google3 (causing slow PR turnaround; and hestitancy to adding
new features. always the question of scope: for example)).

We need our own implemenation because we want:

Note: we can talk about exposing this to the public, but that's something we can do afterwards too. Also once this lands, we can use it for the e2e-app as well.

This also makes #16935 unnecessary as the root-cause is fixed.

@googlebot googlebot added the cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement label Sep 1, 2019
@devversion devversion force-pushed the build/implement-custom-devserver branch 2 times, most recently from 216c660 to 689ace1 Compare September 1, 2019 12:26
@devversion
Copy link
Member Author

Test failures are caused by a merge conflict in master that will be solved in #16928.

@devversion devversion marked this pull request as ready for review September 1, 2019 12:30
@devversion devversion requested review from a team and jelbourn as code owners September 1, 2019 12:30
@devversion devversion added pr: merge safe target: patch This PR is targeted for the next patch release labels Sep 1, 2019
@devversion devversion force-pushed the build/implement-custom-devserver branch from 689ace1 to 313346c Compare September 3, 2019 20:12
Implements a custom bazel dev-server rule that can be exposed eventually. The reason
we need a custom dev-server implementation is that the "ts_devserver" is not flexible
and needs to be synced into google3 (causing slow syncing; and hestitancy to adding
new features. always the question of scope).

We need our own implemenation because we want:

* Live-reloading to work (bazel-contrib/rules_nodejs#1036)
* HTML History API support (currently the ts_devserver always sends a 404 status code)
* Better host binding of the server (so that we can access the server on other devices)
* Flexibility & control (being able to do changes so that the dev-server fits our needs)
@devversion devversion force-pushed the build/implement-custom-devserver branch from 313346c to 00ce81b Compare September 3, 2019 20:14
@devversion
Copy link
Member Author

@jelbourn @josephperrott Addressed feedback. Please have another look.

Copy link
Member

@jelbourn jelbourn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@jelbourn jelbourn added pr: lgtm action: merge The PR is ready for merge by the caretaker labels Sep 3, 2019
@ngbot
Copy link

ngbot bot commented Sep 3, 2019

I see that you just added the pr: merge ready label, but the following checks are still failing:
    failure status "ci/circleci: tests_browserstack" is failing

If you want your PR to be merged, it has to pass all the CI checks.

If you can't get the PR to a green state due to flakes or broken master, please try rebasing to master and/or restarting the CI job. If that fails and you believe that the issue is not due to your change, please contact the caretaker and ask for help.

@jelbourn jelbourn merged commit 1c74518 into angular:master Sep 3, 2019
@angular-automatic-lock-bot
Copy link

This issue has been automatically locked due to inactivity.
Please file a new issue if you are encountering a similar or related problem.

Read more about our automatic conversation locking policy.

This action has been performed automatically by a bot.

@angular-automatic-lock-bot angular-automatic-lock-bot bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Oct 4, 2019
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

action: merge The PR is ready for merge by the caretaker cla: yes PR author has agreed to Google's Contributor License Agreement target: patch This PR is targeted for the next patch release

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants