Move tool configs to separate files and bump dependencies

SolidBench / rdf-dataset-fragmenter.js

Fragments an RDF dataset into multiple parts

MIT License

3 stars 8 forks source link

Move tool configs to separate files and bump dependencies #38

Closed surilindur closed 2 days ago

surilindur commented 3 days ago

This is something I ended up doing in the afternoon in preparation for another PR (a small edit), since I realised the project still used v2 of @rubensworks/eslint-config. So here are the changes to:

Move Jest, Husky and ESLint configs to their own files from package.json
Move index.ts to lib/
Bump the linter, linter config, RDF parser and serializer, and Components.JS dependencies
Fix all the linter errors that popped up
Bump TypeScript target to ES2021 to support replaceAll on strings (linter recommended)
Use the v2 version of coveralls GitHub action to avoid weird deprecation errors around Node versions

The unit tests pass, and I ran this version of the fragmenter with SolidBench master branch to make sure that it still works in practice, as well.

Any feedback is welcome. :)

coveralls commented 3 days ago

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9794017003

Details

30 of 30 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 16 files are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 9755783737:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	883
Relevant Lines:	883

💛 - Coveralls

rubensworks commented 3 days ago

@constraintAutomaton Given your 2 pending PRs, would it be acceptable to you if we merge this PR first? Or do you believe this change will break too much in your PRs?

coveralls commented 2 days ago

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9795576050

Details

30 of 30 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 16 files are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage remained the same at 100.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 9755783737:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	883
Relevant Lines:	883

💛 - Coveralls

constraintAutomaton commented 2 days ago

@constraintAutomaton Given your 2 pending PRs, would it be acceptable to you if we merge this PR first? Or do you believe this change will break too much in your PRs?

I think it is fine if we merge this PR first.

rubensworks commented 2 days ago

It has been done!